Standards of Logic

This is a Worldview IssueOkay, you have a common misconception about this argument, which is completely understandable. This isn't an argument as to why faith in God is better than not believing. This argument isn't about proving God's existence (not necessarily, but it will lead to it, as I'll show), it is about showing the difference between two paradigms (two worldviews).One worldview says this: God created mankind to be rational beings. We can trust logic completely. Logic is absolute, and morals are objective.Another worldview says: Logic is a societal construct. Metaphsyics isan illusion, and everyone's reality is their own perception. We cannot trust logic. Logic is subjective and so are morals.ContradictionsOnly one of those worldviews can be true. They cannot both be true. What many people want to do is, they want to assume that there is no God, and take the atheistic paradigm. This is fine. But in this paradigm, there is no reason to trust logic. There is no right and wrong. We simply just "exist". So one cannot say "we ought to not believe in God, because in a universe that has no meaning, one cannot tell another what one ought to do. One may say that we can each create our own meaning, but then this meaning is subjective, that is, we each decide for ourselves what to do, and each person is just as right with their personal life as the next. One cannot criticize another person because this would contradict their belief in moral relativsm. We are all just random collocations of atoms. As long as the atheist stays in this line of thinking (in line with his/her paradigm, this is fine). But if the atheist then wants to argue the existence of God, he/she must invoke logic, (which is untrustworhty in the atheist paradigm) and is invoking morals (you ought not to believe in God is a contradiction to moral relativsm)So an atheist may say they believe that God does not exist. But once they ask to use logic and moral objective standards, they have just borrowed from the theistic paradigm. They have stepped onto a worldview that needs God to exist. They are in a contradiction. Realize this; this is not an argument that God absolutely exists. This argument does acknowlede that it takes faith to believe in God. But these are irrelevant to the argument I am presenting. The argument is showing how an atheist must use principles ONLY FOUND in the theistic paradigm to argue that one ought not to believe in God. In order for an atheist to refute God, he must invoke God. Refutations and ConclusionI took the bulk of what you were saying and responded by the above, but I do also want to address some of the specific claims you made.I am not saying that people with mental disabilities are not human. We are people who were created in the image of God, and in a fallen world, we have become corrupted more and more with each generation of mutations. So yes, people may be born with defficencies, but we are the image of God fallen, so we can still rely on the being created as rational beings, where in an atheist mindset, we were never created to be rational.I hope I have made it more clear, that this is not an argument on certainties or explaining why faith is important. This argument merely points out how an atheist cannot argue against God without needing to borrow from a theistic paradigm.