What do you mean by 'irrefutable belief'?

If something is irrefutable, then their is no possibility of of disproving or denying it. Whereas a belief is something one holds to be true without requiring proof. Consequently, if one knows something to be truly irrefutable, it is not a belief, but rather a fact.

By irrefutable I mean to negate claims like "it will rain tomorrow" since regarding these type of claims one has enough data to reasonably decide whether they are true or false.
Irrefutable in this sense, includes claims like "one stops to exist after one is dead."

What do you mean by 'irrefutable belief'? — Txastopher

I'm guessing the OP means beliefs that can't be doubted, which I'm not aware of any. Just about anything can be doubted. Even Cogito, ergo sum can be picked apart.

But maybe Witty's hinge propositions come close.

By irrefutable I didn't mean that one cannot disprove it even theoretically. Of course, a person can theoretically come back to life and tell us that he actually didn't stop to be conscious even after dying, but this is only theoretical.

I also didn't mean to beliefs that cannot be doubted. I meant to beliefs that might be false. Irrefutable only means that it cannot be disproved using the data available.
Another example is the belief that there is a free will.

Irrefutable only means that it cannot be disproved using the data available. — Isaac Shmukler

That means just about all of metaphysics, unless there exist irrefutable metaphysical arguments. Maybe for trivial matters, like the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.

My beliefs are irrefutable.

Consequently, if one knows something to be truly irrefutable, it is not a belief, but rather a fact. — Txastopher

There's an error here in thinking that facts and beliefs are on a par. they are not. Facts are about states of affairs, while beliefs are about propositions. A belief is an attitude towards a proposition.

Further, if some proposition is irrefutable, then it seems odd to call it a fact. Facts need justification; bit how could one justify what cannot be refuted?

By irrefutable I didn't mean that one cannot disprove it even theoretically. — Isaac Shmukler

Then it seems that in saying "irrefutable", you do not mean irrefutable.

My beliefs are irrefutable. — Noble Dust

SO you believe. :razz:

Here's an irrefutable belief: My ear is itchy.

I do! It is only irrefutable using the data currently available.
Just as in the examples I already gave. I will give one more:
There is life on planets other than earth. (This can be disproved only theoretically).

It is irrefutable in a sense but not completely. (I am afraid that this is very simple).

SO by irrefutable you mean not refuted. That's not what most of us mean.

The suffix -able denotes an ability and the prefix ir- denotes a negation. This means that irrefutable means "that cannot be refuted." I have used this term correctly, in a limited sense, but correctly. It cannot be refuted using the data available. It can be refuted however, theoretically.
This is what I meant by irrefutable.

Refuted means that it has been refuted in the past. This is clearly not what I meant.

Here's an irrefutable belief: My ear is itchy. — Banno

My understating of 'irrefutable' is that it describes a fact that can be shown to be true and as a consequence cannot be disproved. Your example of an itchy ear could, conceivably, be a lie. Therefore, it is not irrefutable; or is refutable. That there is supreme being cannot be shown to be true therefore is not irrefutable; or is refutable.

If refutable means can be shown to be untrue, then irrefutable means cannot be shown to be untrue; or can be shown to be true.

Your example of an itchy ear could, conceivably, be a lie — Txastopher

I don't care if you believe me or not; I believe my ear is itchy because... well, my ear is itchy. For me, doubt has no place here.

If refutable means can be shown to be untrue, then irrefutable means cannot be shown to be untrue; or can be shown to be true. — Txastopher

"Cannot be shown to be untrue" is not the same as "can be shown to be true".

one stops to exist after one is dead — Isaac Shmukler

Something appears to have stopped. What, in fact, however, is that “something”?

I would call that “something” a personality.

Essentially, therefore, a personality disappeared from one’s occasional, or more than occasional, experience.

A particular thing we do not know is what death is, because we are not able to report it.

To summarise: Someone who “dies” has disappeared.

I don't care if you believe me or not; I believe my ear is itchy because... well, my ear is itchy. For me, doubt has no place here. — Banno

I'm sure you don't, but at the very moment you make your observation public then you invite reasonable scepticism.

There is a world of difference between you believing tht my ear is itchy, and my believing that my ear is itchy.

They are two completely different things. Your scepticism will not scratch my ear.

"Cannot be shown to be untrue" is not the same as "can be shown to be true". — Banno

Clearly, but when dealing with the concept of refutability it does since irrefutability is a quality predicated on refutability. If we don't accept that a condition of irrefutability is that it can be shown to be true, then all things that can't be shown to be true automatically become irrefutable and we end up with the tortuous nonsense of having to prove negatives; e.g. absence of God.

↪Txastopher There is a world of difference between you believing tht my ear is itchy, and my believing that my ear is itchy.

They are two completely different things. — Banno

I thought we'd established that we are not talking about beliefs.

If my ear itches, then it is irrefutable that my ear itches on an internal level. If I tell you that my ear itches, then it is refutable since I may be lying. So you're right, there is a difference,... and?

If I tell you that my ear itches, then it is refutable since I may be lying. — Txastopher

And how would you refute this? How would you show that I was lying?

Why can't there be a proposition that cannot be shown to be true, nor shown to be untrue?

Actually, such propositions underpin Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

I thought we'd established that we are not talking about beliefs. — Txastopher

From the OP:

Should irrefutable beliefs be valued according to their truth or their utility? — Isaac Shmukler

Odd.

If I tell you that my ear itches, then it is refutable since I may be lying.
— Txastopher

And how would you refute this? How would you show that I was lying? — Banno

Bearing in mind that all I claim is that it is refutable, then I would ask you, "Are you lying about your ear itching?", if you replied truthfully in the affirmative then I would have refuted your claim, but, more importantly, this shows that the claim is refutable.

↪Txastopher Why can't there be a proposition that cannot be shown to be true, nor shown to be untrue?

Actually, such propositions underpin Gödel's incompleteness theorems. — Banno

I didn't ask the quoted question, but since you mention it; "This proposition is false".

...is not a proposition.

↪Txastopher ...is not a proposition. — Banno

Is too.

It doesn't say anything.