AB,
I think this forum aptly demonstrates that the task of trying to define reality in terms of watertight logical reasoning (as defined by humans) is not possible.
Your problem isn’t that your reasoning isn’t “watertight”; it’s that your reasoning is hopelessly, categorically flat
wrong. Whether “defined by humans” or by anything else, it’s flat wrong nonetheless.
Take my earlier example: is the problem with my claim that not walking on the cracks in the pavement meant Spurs would win later that day that this reasoning isn’t sufficiently “watertight”, or is it that the reasoning is just plain hopeless?
Clearly it’s the latter, and the reasoning you attempt here – essentially a string of fallacies, formal and informal – is just as wrong. As I explained to you, this doesn’t mean that your conclusions (“god”, miracles etc) are necessarily wrong too, but it does mean that your attempts to reason your way to them can do no such thing.
Your only options therefore are to retreat to “true for me only” subjective truths, or if you want others to take your claims seriously finally to attempt a line of argument that isn’t evidently fallacious.
What I try to do is to use a combination of logic, common sense and personal experiences to make sense of our existence. By rejecting anything which does not comply with the precise logic you demand could result in you throwing away the truth behind our existence.
It’s not “precise” logic, it’s finding logic
of any kind that’s your problem. My cracks in the pavement theory might well seem “logical” to me, but anyone who knows anything about the way logical actually works will know me to be wrong.
Of course there’s always a risk of “throwing away the truth behind our existence” (whatever that means), but just building claims on the back of broken reasoning provides nothing to suggest what that “truth” might be.
