What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Why not? Logical proofs are non-empirical, and all of the arguments we use in science are based on logic, even the ones we use to evaluate empirical evidence. So basically if your statement is true, no evidence is evidence.

Science uses a combination of logical arguementation based on empirical evidence, experimentation, and peer review to make claims. An unproven hypothosis could be formulated (like M-theory) based on evidence and startlingly breathtaking mathmatics to make a case, so a hypothosis might be considered to be 'non-empirical evidence' - but we don't call it that. The term is self-defeating because it is technically an oxy-moron. That's why it's called a hypothosis. It's a logical arguement not based on any direct evidence.
Other logical arguements are called just that - somtimes with their own terminology, but you don't go around telling people you have 'evidence without proof' because most people will tell you that evidence without proof isn't.

True, you cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it, but it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Non-empirical proof is an oxymoron. It is only an oxymoron in your mind because you think that "non-empirical" cannot possibly be evidence, when it can.

One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am".

Technically speaking, that is empirical evidence.
The ability to think can and has been tested in humans and many other creatures. It's how we've found out that some creatures who can't actually speak the worlds "I thnk, therefore I am" are thinking creatures, like Chimpanzees, dolphins, and octopi (if that's the plural form of octopus.)

I think the confusion here is just that
a) Empirical Evidence has a wider definition than you may suspect and
b) What you call 'non-empirical evidence' is usually just called something else. "Logical arguement" is a good term for what I think you may be going for, but there are synonyms for that term as well.

Fr0d0:

As I've already pointed out, the terminology has a set definition. If it doesn't fit that terminology, then that word or set of words do not describe the term you're looking for. It is black and white for the same reason we have a language where terms mean something - sometimes very specific and sometimes very general.
The reason math and morality do not require empirical evidence is because they are entirely human constructs that can, in a sense, not be proven right or wrong based on empirical evidence.

Morality is almost the definition of a social normality and acceptability and it can change over time depending on the attitudes of people. For example, our society in modern times treat women like equal people far more than we ever did two thousand years ago, when they were little better than trade goods.
What is right or wrong cannot be "proven" in any sense of the term like I can prove that Proxima Centari is four and a half light years away from earth.
Math is also another construct mostly as as system of measurement of physical reality based on a logical construct and arguementation. For example, I can proove that there are three rocks in a pile, but I can't proove that the number 'three' exists as anything except a concept.

[Tiberius]

Science uses a combination of logical arguementation based on empirical evidence, experimentation, and peer review to make claims. An unproven hypothosis could be formulated (like M-theory) based on evidence and startlingly breathtaking mathmatics to make a case, so a hypothosis might be considered to be 'non-empirical evidence' - but we don't call it that. The term is self-defeating because it is technically an oxy-moron. That's why it's called a hypothosis. It's a logical arguement not based on any direct evidence.
Other logical arguements are called just that - somtimes with their own terminology, but you don't go around telling people you have 'evidence without proof' because most people will tell you that evidence without proof isn't.

So what you really meant to say is that "in science, non-empirical proof is an oxymoron". I'd agree with you. Science depends on empiricism.

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.

Technically speaking, that is empirical evidence.
The ability to think can and has been tested in humans and many other creatures. It's how we've found out that some creatures who can't actually speak the worlds "I thnk, therefore I am" are thinking creatures, like Chimpanzees, dolphins, and octopi (if that's the plural form of octopus.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Welsh cake]

Yes it is. Non empirical evidence.

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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[theVOID]

Science uses a combination of logical arguementation based on empirical evidence, experimentation, and peer review to make claims. An unproven hypothosis could be formulated (like M-theory) based on evidence and startlingly breathtaking mathmatics to make a case, so a hypothosis might be considered to be 'non-empirical evidence' - but we don't call it that. The term is self-defeating because it is technically an oxy-moron. That's why it's called a hypothosis. It's a logical arguement not based on any direct evidence.
Other logical arguements are called just that - somtimes with their own terminology, but you don't go around telling people you have 'evidence without proof' because most people will tell you that evidence without proof isn't.

Step away from the crack pipe!

[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?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

[Edwardo Piet]

When did I say that? I don't remember it :p

Given the very primitive reasoning involved in creating gods, I would say that it isn't so much that the first humans didn't believe in gods, it was that they simply did not have the cognitive abilities to wonder whether or not gods existed.

(my emphasis).

[Autumnlicious]

When did I say that? I don't remember it :p

Given the very primitive reasoning involved in creating gods, I would say that it isn't so much that the first humans didn't believe in gods, it was that they simply did not have the cognitive abilities to wonder whether or not gods existed.

(my emphasis).

Absolutely correct. By default at the very beginning, a human has no concepts, not even of deities. Ground state, if you will.

So, by default, the atheist has to come first. As does a lack of knowledge. Hence why 99.99% of religious people have to be taught religion. In the first place. Or develop a little bit enough to mis-attribute a person-like entity to inanimate objects due to an incomplete paradigm and attribution of social cognitive abilities to a non-social object.