Standards of Logic

No need to apologize; you've discovered my favorite argument for theism. I have to be honest, it's a newer argument that I've been using, so it's not quite perfected yet, but it's getting there :)IntroThis argument is not saying that non-theists cannot be logical. Logic is a system of reasoning to discover truth. Logic is similar to scientific principles- it is a method of falsification. That is, we use logic to show what is an error, so that we can find out what is true.AtheismNow, remember what Rene Descartes said? "I think, therefore I am." So, you know that you exist. But all you have to trust for your existence is your experience. But how can you trust your memories? If there is no God, we are here by random chance and evolution. We are furtherly developed animals. We do know that memories are faulty. We do know that people use incorrect reasoning to come to incorrect conclusions. We can't know that we don't all do that. We can know that we exist, but everything that exists outside of us could be different from the way that we perceive reality. I can't prove you absolutely exist anymore than you can prove I exist. So, an atheist must say, "I am certain that I exist. I can't absolutely trust my memories, and I can't absolutely trust that my mind perceives the correct reality."TheismA theist, on the other hand, believes that God created man in the image of God. He created man as a rational being, capable of discovering objective truth. Rational DiscussionWhen two people debate a topic, they are trying to figure out the objective truth of the matter. Two theists can discuss a matter, debate, and use logic to come to a shared conclusion that will likely be true.Two non-theists can discuss a topic, but they can't be sure whether the other person really exists, whether their mind is capable of perceiving reality correctly, and whether they have any reason to trust the conclusion.ConclusionIt's not about proving logic, it's about proving if you can trust logic.We live our lives based on the presuppostion that we can trust our minds, and that the way we perceive reality is the right way, and that when we discuss topics, there is an objective truth to discover. Everybody does this, no matter what they believe in. The argument is, only the Theists are justified with these presuppositions, because they can trust their mind, whereas the non-theists have no reason to trust their minds (based on their worldview). So, if an atheist claims he can be logical, he is only able to do so while standing on theistic presuppositions.Rebuttals for ConCon, you asked how you could explain a trust in logic without the need to invoke a God. You made a point that we can make machines, that we can then rely upon them for consistency. This is a good point- if humans are designed, then we should be consistent. If humans are not designed, we may not be like machines and may not be consistent.We know that people exist that have mental disabilities. We know that they are disabled because they are lacking features that we have. But how do we know we aren't disables in some sense, lacking something we don't understand?These are some ways as to why an atheist should doubt his ability to reason, if there is no god. The way to refute this argument is to come up with reasons why we could trust our minds, if god did not exist.I hope I explained myself well. Good luck trying to come up with a way to refute this argument :)