Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.
I do have answers, but waht I do not have is all the answers. I also admit I could be wrong, as any good scientist should. I do not be one of those idiots that should be stoned because I think I know it all.
I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.
1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.
If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.
We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.
This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.
I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.