Of course I can't admit to what you deem to be illogical and self contradictory. My beliefs are perfectly logical to me, otherwise I could not possibly believe in them.
You're not being consistent. I've outlined the logic of my position without, I emphasis again, assuming that minds are physical. The only sensible ways you have of denying my conclusion are to argue that my logic is flawed, and say why, or to deny that basic logic is applicable.
Your previous statement ("
But how can you be so certain that your perceived logic can drive the will of the human soul?") seems to imply the latter, but now you are denying that is what you meant.
Your other alternative is to point to a flaw in my reasoning, which you seem reluctant to even think enough about it to try.
The alternative to my belief in God and the human soul is a materialist scenario which takes away my freedom to say, think and do what I want...
No it isn't your only alternative and no it wouldn't take away that freedom.
For (what seems like) the ten thousandth time: nobody is suggesting that you can't do what you want.
...turning me into a material entity entirely controlled by natural reactions to past events...
Which wouldn't stop you doing what you want.
...which to me is the most illogical scenario.
Where is the actual logic to back this up?
