I‘m going to suggest that, if there is indeed a biblical holy spirit, he’ll be found nowhere near illogic. And christian apologists say as much in their affirmation that logic itself can only have its source in their version of a god.
Then why is it that illogic abounds in christian arguments? And why is it that, even when some theists refrain from employing the clearly illogical arguments common among their fellows, they sit silent as their fellows propagate absurdities?
One common example is the introduction of scriptural verses as evidence of the divine inspiration of scriptural verses. Pastors cite 2 Timothy 3:16 from the pulpit knowing that those in the pews less logically inclined will not detect the circularity of such citations and categorize this verse as evidence for the divine inspiration of verses. When pressed, these pastors will admit they know that it might seem circular, but that they cited the verse merely as “encouragement” and “edification” with no intent to introduce circularity (I was actually told this recently). I’ll leave it to you to assess the honesty in this. This is, however, clear evidence that the holy spirit, if having any potency to lead believers away from illogic, is absent from the hearts of the pastors who introduce 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence of scriptural inerrancy.
Let me introduce another example. I found the following quote on an apologist website.
”Occam’s razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It’s not enough to have a simpler theory if you can’t account for anything. Though we shouldn’t add entities beyond what’s needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what’s needed.” Paul Manata
Scientists are still not certain about the mechanics behind the phenomenon of lightning. For centuries, god, usually an angry god, was posited as the entity needed to explain this phenomenon. Have scientists wrongly dismissed god as the mechanism behind lightning? Are they in error in saying they don’t know what is behind lightning, and unjustified in their holding out for a material explanation? Must, as is claimed in the quote, a theory of lighting account for everything relevant to the phenomenon of lightning, or be exchanged for one that does as did the older Thor and Jehovah theories of lighting?
Were humans justified in believing strange behavior was due to demon possession until we discovered epilepsy, schizophrenia, and other mental disorders? Were we justified in believing that the soul was housed in the pineal gland as Descartes claimed before we tested that assumption?
No! All throughout history, theists have attempted to tell us we were compelled to default to a belief in a supernatural cause until a natural cause overturns that belief. They were wrong then, and are wrong now.
And if these theists introducing such arguments as the one in the quote also suggest that their holy spirit gives them superior logical skills, then either they are wrong and their holy spirit is impotent to assist them in avoiding logical errors, or they are far removed from the very holy spirit they claim to possess.