No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

That’s not off topic at all! It’s completely on topic. What knowledge have you gained using this non-scientific method?

I've never said that I have gained non-scientific knowledge. I'm not sure it's even possible.

I've been talking about reliability, as it applies to the sources of knowledge, and what people think of when they use that term. 

You'll say I'm avoiding the question, but it's unrelated to the thing I'm talking about.

Second question:

Why can’t empirical investigation detect a god?  What distinctive qualities of god render him undetectable?  Perhaps you’re the closed-minded one to assume empirical investigation could never gather any information about god.  That sounds like a metaphysical commitment on your part.

I've covered this before too. Strange that I have to type everything over and over.

If you define God as some sort of entity, like Bigfoot, then he would be detectable by science.

That is not the way the classical theologians have defined him, since Plato, Aristotle, Gregory Chrystosum, etc. etc. etc. By definition God is not one object added to the number of all the other objects. God and the universe do not make two. God is idea. God is non-material, therefore not measurable or quantifiable. 

The fact that you have to ask, that you haven't heard all this a million times before, means that you really don't know enough about theology to have an opinion on the subject.

It is a metaphysical commitment on the part of the people who believe this way. Of course. I never said having a metaphysical commitment is bad; we all have them.