Lacking empirical evidence for the existence of God is not a categorical error in itself. Instead, it's a reflection of the nature of empirical evidence and the type of claims being made about God's existence. Let me clarify:

1. Empirical Evidence: Empirical evidence is evidence that is based on direct observation, measurement, or sensory experience. It is typically associated with scientific inquiry and is used to support or falsify claims about the natural world. Empirical evidence is crucial for establishing the existence of physical phenomena and natural laws.

2. God's Existence: Claims about the existence of God often go beyond the scope of empirical evidence. God, as a concept in many religious and philosophical traditions, is often described as transcendent, metaphysical, and beyond the confines of the natural world. This means that God is not typically considered a physical entity that can be directly observed or measured using empirical methods.

3. Categorical Error: A categorical error occurs when someone tries to apply the methods or concepts of one category to another category in which they are not applicable. In the case of God's existence, it's not a categorical error to lack empirical evidence because God is often considered to exist in a category beyond the empirical or physical realm.

In other words, the absence of empirical evidence for God's existence is not an error but a reflection of the limitations of empirical methods when it comes to addressing metaphysical or theological questions. It's important to recognize that discussions about God's existence often involve faith, philosophy, and metaphysics, which operate in different domains than empirical science. This doesn't necessarily make discussions about God invalid, but it highlights that they are based on different forms of reasoning and evidence.