Comment:

To take as given that spiritual reality exists is to commit to a path that
is self-validating and circular. To believe in the “ghost in the machine”
is to add a superfluous hypothesis which adds nothing to the explanation
of the observed phenomena; in fact it confuses it unnecessarily, as
Ockam’s razor would point out.

Response:

I do not take spiritual reality as given at all. I believe in a spiritual
reality because of the evidence. There is a voluminous amount of evidence
which compels me to believe in a spiritual reality.

Of course, I am well aware of Ockham’s Razor (for the reader,
Ockham’s Razor goes something like this: with two competing explanations
of a particular phenomenon, the simpler explanation is to be favored over
the more complex explanation) and the specific argument you use. It is
not at all compelling in my opinion. Actually, Ockham’s Razor was never
intended to prove anything, but only to help choose the more reasonable
path when all else fails. Ockham’s razor prefers heliocentrism over
geocentrism, and in this case it is correct, but not because of the
logical argument. It is correct because of the evidence for
heliocentrism. Ockham’s razor prefers classical mechanics over quantum
mechanics, but in this case Ockham’s razor makes the wrong choice. Again,
the evidence decides, not Ockham. Ockham’s razor no more disproves the
existence of spiritual reality than anything else.

The reality of a spiritual aspect of existence is based on the evidence,
not on a logical quandry. If there is no spiritual reality, then Jesus
Christ is a liar (but I know he is not a liar). If there is no spiritual
reality then Jesus did not work miracles (but the evidence says that he
did). If there is no spiritual reality, then the hundreds of types,
foreshadows and prefigures in my book From Shadow to Reality are all
coincidence. If there is no spiritual reality then the fact that the
Bible is the only consistently reliable historical record of the ancient
world is just plain luck. If there is no spiritual reality then the
dozens of in-your-face obvious messianic prophecy fulfillments are
impossibly lucky. I can go on if you like. The known facts I just listed
make what may seem like a logical argument such as Ockham’s razor into an
illegitimate argument against the spiritual dimension.

I have never found logical arguments such as the ontological argument
convincing evidence for God. Never. Similarly, I have never found
logical arguments against God to be compelling at all. Logic has nothing
to do with it. The evidence decides the matter. The only logical
argument for the existence of God I have ever found compelling is the
teleological (ie. the argument from design), but even there, the argument
from design is only compelling, not because of the logic, but because of
the evidence.

John Oakes, PhD