What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Tiberius]

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.

Only because you ignore definitions in order to support your point.

Evidence: "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

So no, I disagree that logical reasoning isn't evidence.

Then how do you know you are alive and not just a figment of your own imagination or someone else's?

Being alive has nothing to do with existence. Things can exist without being alive.
Being a figment of your own imagination implies that you exist...
Being a figment of someone else's imagination implies that you exist...

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.

This doesn't have anything to do with my original argument...

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.

It is purely logical reasoning. Reasoning is non-empirical evidence. QED.

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.

There are absolute truths. Look up the 3 laws of logic.

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.

Well non-empirical evidence is used to describe things; namely, evidence that isn't empirical. Whether that evidence is spiritual, or reasoned, or even if it is indeed valid evidence is not the issue here.

Your argument that it is oxymoronic makes no sense. Are you now saying there is no such thing as non-empirical proof? I'm afraid that if you are, a bunch of mathematicians and philosophers are going to be very angry with you.

There isn't anything empirical with the proof that 1 + 1 = 2, or any other mathematical proof.

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.

No, you only included the 2nd, 4th, and 5th definitions because the 1st one (I cited it above) destroys your entire argument.

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.

Now I'm confused. Your argument started with the assertion that "non-empirical evidence is not evidence" and "non-empirical proof is an oxymoron". Now you seem fine with accepting that logical arguments, morality, and mathematics are all examples of the above.

You say you can't prove math, yet you fail to consider the fact that you cannot prove science either. All you do is elevate science to a position where it is the only acceptable way of determining truth (and the only acceptable use of evidence), and reject anything else.

So tell me, how does science prove anything?