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]

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.

[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.