What do you mean by "belief"...and what do you mean by "unshakable?"

If you are talking about whether gods exist or not...

...just choose one...and stick with it. "Belief" in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess...using the word "belief" as a disguise.

Best way to do that is to toss a coin. Heads=there is at least one GOD. Tails=there are no gods.

Refuse to budge...and you have "unshakable belief."

2+2=4.

Torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong.

I do not mean any specific belief, i mean literally there isn't any belief i can justify. If i were trying to be specific, believe me i would.

Take 'Unshakable belief' in the philosophical context, please.

Refusing to disbelieve doesn't make it unshakable, it just means that you aren't. :)

I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs — Monist

Is that an unshakeable belief?

2+2=4. I doubt it.
The whole theory of mathematics are based on principles and axioms. Those are assumed to be self-evident. Like the Principle of Identity. Why is the Law of Identity assumed to be true? The only answer you'll get is, it is obvious. No it is not. It's a dogma, there is no proof. But in the end, it works fine, so we hold on to it for the sake of pragmaticality.

Math works, but it's not a belief, it's a language, and the system of this language are based axioms. I doubt axioms.

Torturing babies... Honestly, ethic beliefs are even harder to establish. They keep us alive. We feel it's wrong or right, but do you see how deep the questioning might go?

Not really. I doubt it as well.

there isn't any belief i can justify — Monist

What reason do you have to doubt all axioms?

Oh, many. The most simple one at least; no evidence for it to be true. It's blind belief. Isn't it? Why is the axiom true? Because it says so, hmmm.... let me think...

Why can't foundationalism apply at least to phenomenological occurrences such as "I am currently looking at a computer screen"?

I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you?

Help me out! — Monist

1 + 1 = 2. There you go, there is an unshakeable belief.

Math works, but it's not a belief, it's a language, and the system of this language are based axioms. I doubt axioms.

You can doubt anything you want including doubt itself. Why stop at doubting axioms? Why not doubt your doubt itself?

Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.

You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not.

Not really. I doubt it as well. — Monist

I might not have any unshakable beliefs.

If by “unshakable” you mean certain, you can only be certain of one thing, you own existence. Its Decarte.
You can doubt the nature of your existence but not that you exist. “I think therefore I am.”
If by “unshakable” you mean something other than certainty then why would you want to have unshakable belief in anything? You should always be open to changing your belief if given better evidence or better reasoning. Unshakable belief is the basis for delusion, self deception and fanaticism.

I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you? — Monist

I agree that mathematics rests on a set of speculative and arbitrary core beliefs, a set of axioms, which are even deemed to be circular. It is not possible to exclude logic itself from that consideration, because logic itself is also an axiomatic system. So, you cannot arrive at an unshakable belief by using logic. Science is even worse, because all its theories are deemed to have an expiry date.

In that sense, there are no unshakable beliefs unless you declare them to be such. It is your own decision what is unshakable to you. Choose wisely ...

Good. All your beliefs should be, in principle, open to revision. Congratulations on meeting the basic requirements of rational thinking.

:up:

Torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong. — PuerAzaelis

Depending on for whose pleasure: yours or the babies'.

Because there might not be a computer. It might just be your brains interpretation of a signal.
I agree that even if so, you might be more certain about the experience of looking to a computer screen, but even your experience or existence might be an illusion.

Regarding the question about foundationalism; I doubt that the unshakable belief we are trying to find can be the ground for other beliefs. So it's not necessarily foundationalism, id rather say scepticism.

I ask this:"Why are my simple questions stronger than even the strongest philosophical arguments?"

We look for the truth in answers, might the truth be hidden in the question?

I do doubt my doubt. I might be believing in a God, or math. For me the doors are open, and it's disturbing state. It feels the same as lost, but it also feels a bit like freedom.

I wish Descartes doubted his doubt as well, might we have something better than the cogito argument?

No.

A:i doubt
B:i am
C: A> B

Descartes accepts that he is a doubting (thinking) thing. Doubting is a state of being. How can you accept the your state of being, before you even come to a conclusion of your own existence?

He might not be really doubting.

Descartes is not creative about how good the evil demon might do his job.

If Matrix 4 comes out, and we find out the Real World (Zion) to be another Matrix, that'd be the creative evil demon I am looking for :-)

Good. All your beliefs should be, in principle, open to revision. . — StreetlightX

Well I hope this belief of yours is open to revision too.

Certainly. On the condition that I give up on being rational, which occurs from time to time, to be fair.

...the act of doubting requires existence. Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesnt exist.

Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesn't exist. — DingoJones

My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.

You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.

Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE.

Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.

The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...

Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)

But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic.

Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.

You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not. — Frank Apisa

#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force)

#2
It's empirical. Another huge problem.

I can count many other, but gravity is not really what I am looking for. The question is more epistemological, gravity does not really fit in here, trust me :-)

What about flat-earthers?

#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force) — Monist

But the question isn't really if once could potentially shakes someone's belief, the question is really if gravity is shakeable for you. And note that your point one is arguing that our understanding of gravity might not be correct, but that doesn't mean that one doubts there is gravity. And yes, empirical 'things' can be doubted, but do you ever doubt gravity? If not, then so far at least it seems unshakable for you.

Is you belief that the empirical is a problem ever get shaken?

Perhaps that is another that might be unshakable.

Or that beliefs can change. That would seem to be an unshakeable belief of yours.

But I suppose my main point is that one shouldn't approach this as everyone. What might someone change their minds on. If there's something you haven't changed your mind on, then, so far, it's been unshakable. And then it seems some metabeliefs of yours are unshakable.

I do not have to "trust" you Monist.

I also have no "unshakable beliefs." In fact, I go you one better. I do not do "believing" at all.

I make guesses...which I properly call "guesses." Some people make guesses and call them "beliefs."

I make suppositions...which I properly call "suppositions." Some people make suppositions and call them "beliefs."

I make estimates...which I properly call "estimates." Some people make estimates and call them "beliefs."

The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise.