No reason justifies disbelief.

[LostLocke]

What god do you believe in, and why have you joined us here at AF?

To make aware there's only one god really.

And of course that god is Lolth. Queen of Spiders, Goddess of the Underdark.

[possibletarian]

true in any meaningful way

It seems that I hold logical conclusions to be reasonable evidence for believing something, and you don't.
I think that many philosophers and theologians have and still are making sincere efforts to answer hard questions, and you think they are just avoiding questions. 
I think we can leave it there.

Now here's our problem, you believe that an argument led by logic could be reasonable evidence for believing something, you then go on to say that you think that many sincere philosophers and theologians have been making sincere efforts to answer hard questions, yet at the same time they have clearly have not yet (despite having hundreds of years to make that argument)  convinced you to believe.  I didn't say they were avoiding questions I said they are avoiding saying that they don't know the answer, which by the way is the answer you agree with.

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?

[Jehanne]

Why do you believe that there is "one" god?  Why not 10?  Or, a million?  Infinitude?

Why are you, like many, asking the wrong questions?

Trolling, troll'n, troll'n....keep those wagons trolling, rawhide!

---

We don't know what made the big bang go bang, but "I don't know" does not mean a god did it, it just means we don't know (yet)

The Cosmos is likely eternal, without beginning or end, but, that's another thread.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why do you believe that there is "one" god?  Why not 10?  Or, a million?  Infinitude?

Why are you, like many, asking the wrong questions?

There are no wrong questions.  There are only persistently dodged ones.

Boru

[Belacqua]

all it gets you to is a prime mover.  What does that tell us about a god?  Nothing.  It’s generic deism at best.

That's right. The Aristotelian argument is for a Prime Mover. If a Christian wants to say any more about it, they have to have different arguments. That's standard.

It isn't deism, though. In deism, God makes the world and goes away. In the Aristotelian Thomist system God sustains the world in being at every moment. 

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.

No, I'm right in saying that this is your metaphysical commitment. A belief that only science-type evidence gives evidence for the world is a metaphysical belief. 

As for your kind offer, I have said that logical arguments are sometimes persuasive in showing what must be true. I know you reject this; others don't.

[fredd bear]

Why are you, like many, asking the wrong questions?

There are no wrong questions.  There are only persistently dodged ones.

Boru

 Indeed. If  'God' is the answer, chances are you're asking the wrong questions.  

[zebo-the-fat]

We don't know what made the big bang go bang, but "I don't know" does not mean a god did it, it just means we don't know (yet)

Neither does it mean a god didn't.

---

What god do you believe in, and why have you joined us here at AF?

To make aware there's only one god really.

It may have been a god, or something else, we don't know, I see no reason to jump on the god idea since we have zero evidence to support that idea. Better to stick with "We don't know" until we get more evidence

[Belacqua]

That's reasonable. I assume that experts are experts because they have studied the field and don't make up their minds lightly. They have solid justifications for their conclusions. 

So for example, if all the experts in a given field (say, biology) apply the same standards they are likely to reach agreement. In biology, the standards would probably be the usual scientific ones: empirical evidence which is intersubjectively repeatable and quantifiable. 

Now suppose you wanted to apply the same standards to religious claims. Is this appropriate? Experts in the field of philosophy, particularly metaphysics, say it is not. Because since the time of Plato God has been conceived of and argued about as a non-material, even a noetic, thingy. These experts hold that God, if such a thing exists, is not detectable or researchable by scientific standards. And there are elaborate arguments to that effect. 

If someone (say, Mr. Wizard) wanted to argue that only scientific standards should apply to questions about God, he would find that the experts disagree with him. Then if he were serious about proving his point, he would have to show that his standards of judgment are the best ones. He would have to meet some burden of proof to show that the way he is judging is a good way.

Most philosophers are atheistic:

The PhilPapers Surveys

That's right. On the other hand, like Camus, they know what the concept of God -- the God of the philosophers -- would be like if it existed. That's all I'm saying.

---

Disbelief doesn't have to be justified.this is just another attempt to shift the burden of proof. That burden belongs to the side that claims to have positive proof of something. If you can't bear it don't shift it.

If you claim "your argument is unpersuasive" you should have reasons, and you should give them.

[Nay_Sayer]

We don't know what made the big bang go bang, but "I don't know" does not mean a god did it, it just means we don't know (yet)

Neither does it mean a god didn't.

---

What god do you believe in, and why have you joined us here at AF?

To make aware there's only one god really.

---

It's FSM

---

[Belacqua]

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

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.