What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

That isn't true of any other branches of thinking; philosophy, mathematics, etc. The three laws of logic are absolute truths, yet cannot be proved empirically. Instead, they are proved through logical reasoning which falls apart if any one of them is untrue.

Right, but you don't call those non-empirical evidence.
I'm not arguing against those things, I'm making a statement about terminology.
Logical reasoning isn't evidence in the strictest sense of the term, which I outlined earlier.

Evidently you haven't done any research on the actual proof "I think, therefore I am". It proves that the thinker exists; it does not prove anyone (or anything) else does. It is non-empirical since it cannot be tested by external observers, and is inherently subjective.

Then how do you know you are alive and not just a figment of your own imagination or someone else's?
That's the problem with philosophy, but this topic of conversation is already wildly off-topic from 'what came first, the atheist or the theist'.

Still, you can prove to yourself that you are thinking. You can test that by thinking. I don't see the non-empiricism in that statement. If you couldn't think, you couldn't make such a statement.

The proof stems from the fact that the action "to think" is an ability associated with existing things. That is, there cannot be non-existent things that can think. Therefore, by simply thinking about whether one exists, you have proved that you do.

You're absolutely correct, but that isn't non-empirical evidence. You're not basing your ability to think on a logical arguement. The very process belies empirical evidence of a process.

This proof cannot address anyone else though. If you were to come up to me and say "I think, therefore I am", I could do any number of tests to verify that you could indeed think, but I would have to put a level of trust on my readings; I would have to assume at some point that they are correct. This is the assumption that science rests on; that the natural world we live in exists, and that we can learn things about it by observing it. It is, nonetheless, an assumption.

I didn't mean to imply that there there wasn't trust in findings. As I've said on another thread - there are no absolute truths. You can't accept anything any kind of absolute certainty - the very concept is a failing that religion attempts to portray as a success of their beliefs.

What you're talking about is still empirical evidence - the term isn't defined by the presence or absence of peer review, which is itself not perfect for the same reason trial juries are imperfect.
Still, I can prove that I can think and I can keep proving it until I'm dead or unconcious. The process and mechanisms are there for me to allow to make the case that I'm a thinking entity as much as any other human.

At the end of the day, nothing science does proves anything. Science cannot prove anything; nor does it attempt to do so. Science tells us what the most likely truths are, based on observations and reasoning, and the underlying assumption that the observations and reasoning we use is real.

I hope you understand, though, that I'm not trying to make the case that science is infallible or that it proves anything with 100% certainty.
If anything, I'm making the case that non-empirical evidence is not used as a term to describe anything. The term is oxymoronic in its most literal sense because evidence is proof and proof is evidence. Arguements based on logic are just that.

I'll try to give an example based on the definition examples I provided earlier:

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

I only included the 2nd, 4th, and 5th definitions as they seemed to be the most able to support the definition of "evidence" we're talking about.
Even those, though, are indicating the presence of some sort of empiricism in their statements.
Flushing look as evidence of a fever.
Evidence of approval through the man's promise of support.
Evidence of accusation with incriminating letters.

All three of these things are things that are backed with some form of supporting evidence that can be determined empirically, which means:
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

I can prove a fever by evidence of flushing of the skin, ergo, one is evidence of the other.
I can prove a man intends to or does show approval through a promise of support.
I can prove an accusation with the incriminating letters.

All three of these things meet the criteria of the definition of empirical.
Non-empirical evidence is thus things that cannot be derieved or guided by experience or experiment, depends on experience or observation alone, or provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Things that would qualify, I think, of this would be logical arguements, morality, and mathmatics in the sense that math is a human concept to measure reality and not a reality in itself and thus you can't 'prove' math.