Reincarnation Cases

I think that reality must conform to the laws and truths of logic. These are things like the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of of the excluded middle. These fundamental laws should be and are considered true principles governing reality. For one thing, if they are not then rational discourse would be impossible - we couldn't even be sure 2 plus 2 always equals 4. We are certainly fundamentally incapable of imagining and envisioning such a realm. If the spiritual reality of souls and spirits does not conform to the logical principles inherent in our existence then these issues are fundamentally impossible to understand, and we might as well give up any attempt.
  
The double slit experiment aside, this matter of whether there is soul choice of the next life, and some important aspects of what must be the nature of this soul, does in part at least boil down to a little simple logic based on our knowledge of our human selves. What as human beings would our decision be if given the choice whether or not to condemn ourselves to a life of suffering and struggle in order to grow spiritually? At least I am sure I know what my decision would be. Somebody or something else might decide differently. This is the case regardless of any number of channeled communications, past life memories obtained under hypnosis, and NDE accounts.

OK-

So I've got two ways to come at this...

1-
So you come across a man who has a person tied up in their garage and is torturing him. Does "simple logic" tell you he is right or wrong?

I would assume you would say he is wrong, because 1+1=2 right?

OK, so later you find out, he's torturing him because the guy has the man's family held hostage and has killed one, and has left the others to die somewhere...

OK, what does simple logic tell you now?

Yes of course simple logic needs to be applied to all we do, but you are using it to claim you know the right path when the truth is MUCH deeper than your simplistic 1+1 view of things. You are deluding yourself.

2-
You remind me of the what the not so ancient "scientists" said about meteors: that they are impossible because obviously rocks can't fall from the sky. To them is was "simple logic". 

It was shown of course that simple logic needs to be applied VERY carefully, as it sometime just proves that you don't understand the thing about which you speak. 

If I were you I would leave those questions up in the air, unanswered, rather than to answer them with faulty thinking. 

But that's just me.

In any case, with all due respect, it's not that your logic doesn't confirm to my evidence,,,,

It's that- As soon as you start selectively choosing the evidence you wish to respect, your opinion looses credibility, at least with me. Not that this should mean anything to you but,,, just saying.