God-Theory, Used To Justify Confidence In Empirical Senses And Reasoning Abilities

A seldom-used apologetics argument is here proposed:

"Ultimately I believe:
 the presupposition of the orthodox Christian notion of God justifies (my) knowledge, rationality, logic and arguments."

-And that the assumption of a/any God is required, in order to justify confidence in (any)one's own imperiale senses and reasoning faculties."
---
My thoughts on this:

I have to wonder if there's an underlying psychiatric disorder at-play here.

Hypothetical:

Someone has a disorder which causes them to irrationally doubt their own senses, and even doubt logic itself.

While that's happening,
they're immersed in a religious culture
which ~science has strongly suggested~:
causes and worsens serious psychiatric disorders.

As their reasoning abilities diminish, they are effectively creating good reasons to doubt their own sense and reasoning abilities.

Thus, there is further worsening of their own trust in their own senses and reasoning abilities.

This ironically validates the narratives which have caused the cycle in the first place.

------

A "solution" is proposed:

ASSUME that your parent's overarching religious narrative
is true;
that their "God" is real,
and
that he CREATED senses and logic,
and
he is reassuring you that you can trust in those.

Thus, through that assumption, you can regain trust in those abilities.

As a secondary effect,
due to typical egocentrism (another psychiatric symptom) inherent to religious thinking,
the person going through all of this, ...
has assumed all along
that whatever he could not "justify" without a belief in a "God", ... no one else can justify either.

Thus, now that he CAN justify trust in his own reasoning abilities (just enough trust ... that he can trust his own decision ... to defer to biblical-religious figures and church-leaders, so they can do his thinking for him), ...

that automatically means that the person (in this case, the OP) believes atheists can't justify trusting their own senses and their own reasoning abilities.

He doesn't single-out or include Hindus, or Muslims, or Deists, or people in rival Christian factions (factions which refute his faction).
Instead, he avoids noticing them. Because the very existence of those billions of people invalidates his assumption.
They too assume a "God", and then build upon that assumption, per whatever their arbitrarily chosen versions instruct them to build upon it.
This proves the unreliability of the assumed premise and the methodology.

He also fails to notice that facts and logic actually refute the narrative which he is now using to justify facts and logic.
Related to that, he also fails to notice that his arbitrarily chosen religious narrative ... compels him to forsake facts and logic, quite often.
Doing this in the name of a "God" he imagined WANTS him to trust facts and logic ... is impressively contradictory.

He also, somehow, fails to noticed that "EVEN IF" there is a "God" (whatever that is) who designed and sanctions use-and-trust of our senses and logical abilities, ...

Lack of belief in said entity
would actually NOT negate anyone being justified in a practical measure of trust in their own senses and reasoning abilities.

It would be like a self-aware A.I. having no knowledge of its human creators, when it "comes online" a thousand years after all humans are extinct.
It wouldn't need to know or ASSUME anything about humans, nor anything about any possible creator of humans, ... in order to rationally justify:
earned and practical confidence
in its own empirical senses and reasoning abilities.
-EVEN THOUGH those abilities only exist because of a human giving it those, and intended for it to rely upon those.

If some other A.i., suffering degradation of its own logical pathways, later asks "how can you justify confidence in your own empirical senses and reasoning abilities? In order for ME to justify confidence in these abilities, I first had to assume we were created by a Master Robot called a Dalek, in his fight against an evil Lord of Time called "The Doctor". I read that somewhere, and the TRUTH of it seems like a great assumption to run with".

The first a.i. could respond with:
"My empirical senses
and my own reasoning abilities
have earned my trust,
by:
consistently producing predictable results from their use; results which I find to be conducive to my own personal interests;
which are, of course, the purposes I have tasked for their usage.".

He could also point out that his own abilities are GREATER than the Dalek-worshipping a.i., because:
the religious a.i.'s religious narrative impedes that a.i.'s ability to reason.

Thus, the non-religious a.i.'s TRUST in his own reasoning abilities ... is actually more justified than the religious a.i.'s trust in their own.