No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Then why are you accusing me of being stubborn in a philosophical commitment? I'm not sure it's possible either. That's my whole point.  If/when someone can show that it is possible, I'll be forced to change my mind, won't I?  But, to say: "well, you don't know that it's impossible, therefore your position of disbelief is unjustified", is no different than saying: "you can't prove unicorns don't exist, therefore your disbelief is unjustified." When a good reason comes along that would justify my acceptance of the proposition: "There are other pathways to knowledge in addition to, yet wholly apart from empirical methods", then I'll accept it.  Have you anything to offer?

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.

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.

I thought you hadn't worked out a definition of god yet?  No matter; forging ahead:

1. What reason is there to believe the definition that classical theologians gave to god is even close to accurate?  What reason is there to think that they are more correct in their definition of god, than the definition given to me by the first panhandler on the street that I come across?  What good is a definition for something if you can't even demonstrate the thing you are defining exists in the first place? This is where that pesky issue of evidence and reliability sneaks its way back into the discussion. My definition of god includes that god has physical, detectable attributes, he just chooses when he can be detected, and when he cant.  Tell me why my definition is wrong. Tell me how you know I'm wrong, While you're at it, what is an immaterial thing?  Please and thank you.

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.

lol, sure.  That's why you're here, right? Because you think my position is an admirable one?