What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[fr0d0]

Yes it is. Non empirical evidence.

Non-empirical evidence is subjective, not objective fr0d0, it's subjectively true to you, the observer.

Absolutely. I agree 100%

The use of empirical evidence however, actual data, renders personal experiences such as these ineffective. Worse still, the belief in god has no meaningful definition, nor explanatory power; indeed it barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

Spot on again. I'm impressed now!

You're basically claiming you have evidence for god yet can't publish a peer-reviewed journal for god until you build up statistical significance for the hypothesis of said deity which requires an analysis of empirical evidence, which you also can't do until you actually bother to conduct some empirical research.

I have non empirical evidence that applies to a non empirical subject.

But you seem to think non-empirical evidence of god is comparable to objective evidence, if that's so, please demonstrate to us an observation for this god-thingy, an induction and deduction of god; test the hypothesis and finally give us an evaluation of your testing if it's not too much trouble, after all you believe god is omnipotent so I'm confident he'll lend you some of that 'infinite power' of his to overcome this trivial little obstacle.

Non empirical evidence is nothing like objective evidence.