This is done by use of Rene Descartes famed "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") argument. Despite that the argument is false, theism uses it to launch its gangrenous GOD and enable the believer’s delusion. One cannot go from the premise “I think.” To the conclusion “I am.” Descartes needed an additional premise, “"Whatever has the property of thinking, exists." But the Descartes method of doubt rejects the additional premise. It can be argued that the first premise, “I think”, presupposes as an enthymeme, the proffered premise. The method of doubt, however, assumes that thinking is a property of the mediator. This contradiction renders the “Cogito” fallacious.
When it is pointed out to the believer that consciousness presupposes that existence exists independent of consciousness and that consciousness is a process of awareness of existence, they reply that their GOD existed as pure consciousness aware only of itself prior to the alleged first creative act. This is the primacy of consciousness fallacy and is deeply rooted in several other errors that results in an epistemological reversal of the relationship between thinker as subject of thought and that which is perceived, the object of thought. Existence actually exists and is independent of any consciousness. The proper relationship then between the thinker as subject of thought and reality as object of thought entails metaphysical primacy of existence over any form of consciousness. Theism fraudulently reverses the subject-object relationship by declaring its ruling consciousness to have priority and power over existence. In considering the subject-object relationship reversal, it is apparent three related fallacies enable the GOD-exist claim at issue.
Theism fallaciously asserts GOD exists
Expressed as a modus ponens syllogism, the Principle of Instantiation reads:
If X is instantiated, then X exists with properties.
X is instantiated.
X exists with properties
In order to claim that its GOD existed without existence as a consciousness alone that was conscious of only itself, theism makes the following modus ponens argument.
If G thinks, then G exists with properties.
G exists with properties.
This argument is very much like the Principle of Instantiation and can be derived by substituting “X is instantiated” with “G thinks”. The key here is for theist to validate the substitution.
In the “Affirming the Consequent” fallacy the argument is of the form "P implies Q, Q is true, therefore P is true." As a modus ponens syllogism:
If P then Q
(“Affirming the Consequent” is a fallacy.)
In order to feel secure towards a subject-object relationship reversal, theism must validate the above mentioned perversion of the Principle of Instantiation. To do this it starts by presupposing an “Affirming the Consequent” to the effect:
If thinking obtains, then whatever thinks exists,
Whatever thinks exists.
This fallacy is packaged with the question begging ad hoc assertion that “GOD thinks.” into a presupposed enthymeme that is used to validate the substitution of “G thinks” into the Principle of Instantiation. In this manner the reversal of subject of thought for object of thought as related to the fantasy of GOD is accomplished and reality is perverted in the theist’s imagination. They then go on their merry way delusionally believing their fantasy of GOD to be reality.