No reason justifies disbelief.

[possibletarian]

An atom of a radiactive isotope decays into two atoms of a lesser element. It has definitely changed
Is it caused by something?

Yeah, everybody knows this. 

That's why I said, just below the part you quote, that these days many people don't accept the second premise.

---

Given that you are a none believer and you sincerely believe this process can result in evidence for a god, is there some new argument or new method we should look at?

Not that I know of.

The existing arguments are difficult. It may well be that they are not accepted due to metaphysical prejudices and the fact that people don't work on them. The fact that so many atheists, even prominent ones, get the arguments wildly wrong is proof of this.

But still, they don't convince you either, despite having a few hundred years ?

[brewer]

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetPos

Sounds like it all might just be mental masturbation and in the end amount to nothing.

That's right. I think every student of metaphysics knows that much of it will never be proved.

Why does that make it not worth our time?

Are you such a Puritan that you hate masturbation?

If every student knows it then why do you continue like it will come to some end where you will succeed? We know your metaphysical position(s) and have dismissed it/them as lacking. 

I like masturbation just fine. But your demonstrated need to go on and on about one topic, metaphysics/god/religion, seems to be some form of cerebral narcissism.

I know that you believe you're better than me/most. That's why you constantly name drop.

[Belacqua]

But still, they don't convince you either ?

I'm still working on them. Is there a hurry? "I don't know yet, and maybe never will," seems to me like a reasonable position. 

One learns interesting things along the way.

---

I know that you believe you're better than me/most. That's why you constantly name drop.

I constantly cite people who are smarter than I am because they have better ideas than I do. 

Should I ignore the ideas of smart people? I don't think I'm qualified to do all the work on my own.

[possibletarian]

But still, they don't convince you either ?

I'm still working on them. Is there a hurry? "I don't know yet, and maybe never will," seems to me like a reasonable position. 

One learns interesting things along the way.

Sure, let us know perhaps when you make progress, which at least convinces yourself

[brewer]

---

I know that you believe you're better than me/most. That's why you constantly name drop.

I constantly cite people who are smarter than I am because they have better ideas than I do. 

Should I ignore the ideas of smart people? I don't think I'm qualified to do all the work on my own.

The people/ideas often have nothing to do with the discussion, and yet, there are are. You do it for a "look at me" moment. 

And out of everything I responded with, this is what you choose to reply to.

[Catharsis]

Why don't we all have a bad day every day. 

[Nay_Sayer]

Why don't we all have a bad day every day. 

[LadyForCamus]

Even if I give you that argument, right down to the contingency of the universe on the prime mover, that still would only be an argument for a prime mover, do you understand? 

That's right. I just said that. I understand it. 

A Prime Mover is a Prime Mover, and if a Christian wants to argue for more attributes, he needs to make separate arguments.

So then you admit these arguments are not arguments for the judeochristian tri-omni god?  So...what good are they then?  What do they tell us about the origins of the universe? What meaningful thing do they tell us about any god?

What is your definition of god, Belaqua?

I don't have one, particularly. I am working on several different ones. 

Then there is the apophatic idea of God, which makes the lack of our ability to define God something important in our understanding. That's an interesting train of thought.

I might actually happen to agree with you on that one.

I'm not avoiding anything, and I'm not lying. And it's not fair of you to accuse me.

Well, frankly, it’s not to hard to suspect as much when I ask you something multiple times and you refuse to give me a straight answer.

You don't like my answers, that's all.

You haven’t answered anything.  I’m still waiting to hear what this reliable method of investigating god-claims is, and how you know it’s reliable.  As I said in my last post, logical arguments rely on assumptions about the observable universe; empirical data you said we couldn’t use to investigate god.  Are you going to comment on that point, or...?  Also, I’ll ask again, why don’t you find logical arguments for god persuasive?

You said very clearly that only science-type evidence is evidence. If that's what you think, that's your metaphysical commitment.

What others types of evidence besides empirical evidence is there, and why do you think it’s quality and reliability are on par with scientific evidence, in terms of accurately reflecting reality? Can you demonstrate as much? If you can, I’ll eat my left shoe.

Also please note that you have left two of my questions unanswered. If you're going to accuse me of avoiding things, you shouldn't also do the same.

If I missed something, I apologize.  Point to me to my oversight and I’ll do my best to give you an honest answer.

[Catharsis]

Do mind scientific evidence isn't always realiable. Science is still evolving and had to crawl back on what they thought to be evidence more than often so why pin down on it so much?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there some other type of evidence? Perhaps you could offer some piece of evidence that wouldn't qualify?