No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1893303' dateline='1553169893']
Logical arguments do not function as fact-gathering tools. They begin with assumptions that, if sound, will be fact-based, and yield conclusions from there.

For example, Aristotle's whole argument for a First Mover begins from two premises: 

1) things change, and 
2) change is caused by something. 

Those seemed self-evident to people for a long time. The rest of the argument pretty much goes from there, without the need for more premises. 

I understand that people now tend to think the second premise is not believable. Maybe so.

Even if I give you P2. for the sake of the argument, all it gets you to is a prime mover.  What does that tell us about a god?  Nothing.  It’s generic deism at best. It tells us something moved to create reality. It doesn’t describe what that thing is, or any of its attributes. Why does the prime mover necessarily have to be god? Where is the argument for that assertion? Further, a prime mover argument certainly doesn’t get you to the tri-omni, personal god of monotheism. I have acquired no information about any god thanks to this argument, so what good is it?

If you're talking about evidence, you're talking about science.

This is your metaphysical commitment. I guess it seems so self-evident to you that it needs no defending. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

Wrong.  I am offering you the opportunity to present a different metaphysical commitment; an alternative method to the scientific method for information and fact-gathering about a claim (“god exists.”), and defend its reliability and accuracy.

So far, you have done everything except that, lol.