AB,
The logic I use is intended to indicate the possibility of God's existence, and our own spiritual nature.
That’s another fallacy, in this case the fallacy of the vacuous truth. No-one denies that anything is
possible (I’m leaving aside for now your definitional problems with “God” and “spiritual” by the way), and there’s no particular logic needed to “indicate” that. “God”, leprechauns, unicorns sneezing glitter are
all conceptually at least possible.
Your problem here though is to find some logic to take you from possible to
probable.
The reason I get so many accusations of fallacy is presumably because the accusers think I am trying to prove the existence of God and our spiritual souls. If my logic is seen to be an attempt at proof, then I would agree with the accusers.
That’s not true. Time and time again when you’re asked why you believe the things you believe, you answer with one or several fallacies. If the question was instead, “Why do you think these things are possible?” you might have a point here, but that isn’t the question at all for the good reason that it’s not worth asking.
But I hope my posts can at least cause pause for thought in those who genuinely search for truth.
Of course they can’t because merely asserting something – anything in fact – to be possible tells you nothing whatever about whether it's probable. The only rational response therefore is, “So what?”.
On the subject of discovering the truth behind our existence, if you were to ask ten philosophers for to describe their concept of reality, you would invariably get ten different answers.
No you wouldn’t. Generally philosophers subscribe to and cohere around common positions. If by “invariably” you actually meant something like, “If I looked hard enough I might be able to find ten philosophers with ten different answers” you might have a point, though I suspect most would baulk at your premise of “the” truth
a priori.
I believe this indicates that the human mind alone is not capable of discovering the absolute truth behind our existence, so we need to look beyond our fickle human reasoning.
That’s two fallacies in one sentence – the vacuous truth and the
non sequitur.
First, no-one suggests that we are capable of discovering “the absolute truth” (how would we ever know that it is absolute, or even that such a thing exists?).
Second, your “so we need…” etc doesn’t follow from the premise. It assumes both that there is absolute truth, and that there is a means other than reason of identifying it.
So what I hope the searchers can do is to at least accept the possibility of God and our human soul, and with this in mind, read the words on the New Testament, open the door of your mind and allow God to come into your life.
And you finish with the fallacy of reification. Did you see what you did there? You pushed at the open door of “anything’s possible” to asserting “God”, the inerrancy of the NT etc with no connecting logic of any kind to take you from the former to the latter.
This is the Grand Canyon-sized gap in your thinking. Start with attempting at least some coherent definitions for “God”, “soul”, “spiritual” etc and then – finally – try to find some reasoning that takes you further than “these things are possible”.
Until you can do that, your efforts here are epistemically equivalent to me telling you that unicorns are possible, and that you should read the Big Book of Unicornology to “allow unicorns to come into your life”.
Good luck with it though.
