What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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

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

Then what is logical reasoning non-empirical proof of?
How do I prove anything on the basis of a logical arguement without an empirical component to verify a statement to be true?

Here, let me look at the laws of logic:

---

laws of logic
Definition:
In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the three basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought":

1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.

3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.

The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.

---

Adrian, you've done a lot to tell me that these laws are examples of non-empirical evidence, but the one thing you haven't done is explain how I can unequivically prove something is true without any actual empirical component.

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...

Oi. I'm sorry I used the term 'alive' instead of 'exists.' I was using them, erroneously, in the same context as one another.

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

No, it isn't. The logical reasoning isn't itself evidence that you exist. The process of thinking is the evidence and that process is the process by which you have empirical evidence. The fact that you can reason one from the other doesn't prove the process. It doesn't prove anything.

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

I did. I looked through them more than once both before and during the process of writing this response. I have no reason to believe there is anything 'absolute' about them.
For example, the law of identity:

1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.

A very straightforward law and the simplest to demonstrate.
For example, the computer I am typing on is a computer and I can be certain that it is a computer. Yet, looking at my computer, how does the logical arguement that thing a - my computer is thing a - my computer with absolute certainty.
Absolutism, of any kind, works exactly like approaching the speed of light with something with mass - you can get 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% or more the way there, but you can never truely be 100% there.

Whether that evidence is spiritual, or reasoned, or even if it is indeed valid evidence is not the issue here.

None of those things are evidence. It's just like my examples of describing having non-items or telling a friend that I certainly don't have a brick behind my back. Even if the statement is true, you're trying to tell me that if I said I don't have a brick behind my back that you couldn't see, that I still have a kind of brick. It's nonsense.

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

Actually, I didn't include the 1st and 3rd definitions because I thought it supported my position in this discussion more than the ones I did include. Please do not get into the trap of assuming my decisions are based on attempts at deception or misinformation. I honestly am making no attempt to decieve you, even if I'm completely wrong about what I'm saying.

Since you brought them up, I suppose I will address them now:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

The literal definition of non-empirical is the opposite of the following:
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.

So if you can tell me how something not derived from or guided by experience or experiment that which proves or disproves somthing or is ground for belief or proof
or
something not depending on experience or observation alone without scientific method or theory which tends to prove or disprove something or is ground for belief or is proof
or
something not provable or verifiable by experience or experiment which tends to prove or disprove something or is ground for belief or is proof
then you can how it is possible to provide evidence for anything without being guided by experience, experiment, observation, or how it can be possible for something to be evidence for something without it being provable or verifyable.

For example, I can point to a pensil, and say that this computer, A, is a computer, A. The statement would be true. It is a logical arguement, if based on false assumptions (that the thing I'm pointing to is, in fact, a computer) but what is isn't is evidence of anything. It's a logical statement that does not tend to prove or disprove something, nor is it ground for belief, or proof of any kind. It is an arguement based on nothing.

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.

I think this is due to a disconnect of communication somewhere. I think you think I'm saying something I may not be and I may be making the same mistake as you with you.
I'm not quite sure where the disconnect is just yet, because I've tried very hard to make myself as clear as possible.
I'm saying that non-empirical evidence is an oxymoron, according to their definitions. Something can't be evidence of something else if it doesn't meet the criteria of what empirical means as I attempted to outline above.

What I think you're arguing is that because I can say that I'm watching a non-television that I can argue that I am watching a kind of teleivision whereas I'm arguing that I can't be watching teleivison. I might be watching a youtube video on my computer or watching the words in a book, but I'm not watching a kind of television because a non-television isn't a television.
The analogy isn't perfect to describe the situation, but I think it illustrates my point.

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.

In what sense am I saying that?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

So tell me, how does science prove anything?

Look, logic, rational thinking, and evidence all go hand-in-hand in making science as awesome as it is. They're all tools of the trade of understanding reality.
My point is that you can't use an arguement, in and of itself (non-empirical evidence), to prove anything. By definition, it doesn't meet the criteria of scientific understanding.
In other words, I can't pose a really good arguement and prove that I have a pencil unless I can actually prove I have a pencil, such as by showing you a pencil, or showing you proof that I either have or had a pencil, such as by showing you something written or drawn in graphite.
With math, M-theory is a fantastic arguement for a unified theory of everything. I've heard physicists describe the theory as being mathmatically beautiful and an excellent way of uniting centuries of scientific thought and discovery, but theory itself and all the math involved doesn't prove itself to be true. It doesn't match the definition of evidence because it isn't that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. That requires doing things that fit the criteria of 'empirical.'

I'm not saying logical arguements doesn't exist. I'm not saying that they don't have their place. Their place in the scientific community is beyond reproach.

What I am saying is that a logical arguement - non-empirical evidence - isn't evidence of anything. I cannot prove you exist by any measure of logical arguement unless the arguement itself has a basis in reality - empirical evidence.

For example, I can prove that you, Tiberius, exist because I'm talking to you now, through the internet and because of that I can pose the arguement that you exist on very logical grounds. I can not provide evidence that you exist independantly of empirical evidence, using only an arguement alone.

I hope this makes things clearer.