What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[fr0d0]

---

"the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"

What about that bit?

Your point is invalid. You said that non empirical evidence is not valid, when it clearly is.

My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence.
He's certainly using the term in proper context much in same manner I referred to as saying that I listen to a non-computer, talking to a non-human, and eating a non-hamburger.
He's using the term quite pointlessly in virtually every inch of the example you gave.

As to the statement above:
"the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"

"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.

---

How ridiculous. You're arguing black is white here TDoA. So you can't have non empirical proof except in morality and maths. Haha! ...Plus a few other things I guess you need to add.