I try to use logic to get my points across
Logic is prescribed, constrained by strict rules called valid rules of inference, other inferences being called fallacy, or logical error. One can learn these rules and become competent at constructing sound arguments to the exclusion of fallacy. Another skill learned when developing critical thinking skills is determining the significance of a fact or finding (evidence). A third skill is being able to evaluate the arguments of others to determine if they are valid and their conclusions sound or not, as when evidence is misinterpreted or invalid arguments offered.
What you're being told over and over in this thread is that what you call evidence that a messenger was sent by a deity does not support that conclusion, and therefore is not evidence of what you say it is. They are also telling you where your reasoning is fallacious. They are hoping to convince you of this by explaining in what way you deviated from the laws of reason and evidence interpretation under the assumption that you would want to know if you had made an error and come to an unsound conclusion, but by now, it is apparent that that is not a realistic expectation.
The problem is that since you cannot construct an argument soundly or evaluate an argument critically, there is no little hope of convincing you by showing you your error if you can't see fallacy. They require you to participate at that level - kind of a Catch 22 that one needs somebody to be a sound thinker to show them that they are committing errors in their reasoning. And so, the thread is at an impasse.
The unanswered question for me and I expect some others is whether you did what most faith-based thinkers do, which is to choose to believe an insufficiently supported belief and then retrofit it with something that you call evidence despite it not being used to arrive at that belief, or whether you were actually convince by what you call evidence. It hardly matters, because the result is the same. If the latter is the case, your belief is actually a conclusion however unsound. If it is the former, the commoner case, then what is being done is offering a premise as a conclusion, or what I call a pseudo-conclusion, since it preceded the evidence and thus is not derived from it as an actual conclusion is, however soundly or unsoundly.
I believe (but I do not know) that God wants everyone to know that He exists but my belief is not derived from scriptures so it is just a personal opinion. It is just as possible that God does not want everyone to know that He exists, and it is even possible that God does not care if anyone knows that He exists.
Critical thinking doesn't allow for unsupported belief. But you are being honest here that you have no reason to believe what you do. This time, you didn't claim t have evidence or reason to support your belief. There is no argument possible there. All one can say is that he doesn't think that way or accept that belief himself.
When I said ” I do not believe that God ever wants to be known as an objective fact” that was based upon deductive reasoning; since God has not proven to humans that He exists as an objective fact, I concluded that He does not want to be known that way.
Your conclusion is unsound. You didn't consider the other possibilities for why so many people are unconvinced that this deity exists, including that it doesn't. The proper analysis for the why evidence that would convince a critical thinker that a deity exists is lacking is that this god doesn't exist, it is unaware we exist, it is indifferent to our existence, or that it is unwilling or unable to make itself known. That's deduction. These are all logically sound positions, none of which can be ruled in or out. What you did was jump to your preferred explanation, generating a non sequitur - a conclusion that does not follow from what preceded it, also called an unsound conclusion. You ruled them all out but the one you prefer to believe is true.
It's one thing to say that this is what you have chosen to believe and not try to defend those beliefs. No critical thinker will argue with a faith-based belief. He will tell you that he doesn't believe it himself, and that by his means of evaluating truth claims, that your belief is unjustified. If you call your belief faith-based, you are saying that you don't require justification to believe. Once again, what's there to disagree about? OK, you don't, I do.
But when you make claims such as that you use logic including deductive reasoning, and that you have evidence to support your beliefs, they tell you that you are wrong. They respect those skills enough to not let somebody who makes logical errors call them logical thinking. It's not, and there is a duty to correct such errors, just as many consider it a duty to label Covid misinformation error in social media with a label, or in televised congressional hearings when a Senator gives misinformation with a rebuttal from a expert.
If you value truth and agree that critical thinking is the path to that, you speak out for the benefit of others who also value truth, but might not be able to identify the misinformation or logical error as such without help. These would probably be younger people, since older people with those values will have developed those skills, and older people lacking them don't find value in them, and so, nothing a critical thinker would say would have any impact on them.
It's interesting when people who are unskilled at these principles give homage to them by insisting that they use them, but are indifferent to a chorus of experienced critical thinkers telling them that they are not using them properly. How are we to understand that? Do they really respect reason? If so, why aren't they going to more skilled reasoners for guidance? Are they really indifferent to it, but trying to legitimize their positions with those that are not by claiming it? If one doesn't respect reason, if he considers faith a legitimate path to truth, why not proudly announce that that is the path you took?
