Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

... To make matters worse, your consciousness is fallible, so even if you could logically prove anything, it could still not be trusted to be true. We can however, make things seem probable (and thus believable).

I daily life, we do not distinguish between that which is believed to be probable and that which is true. But if we are being completely and technically precise (and we're going in that direction here) we can never prove anything to be objectively true.

I agree. I'd be interested in your opinion on the rationality thread. http://atheistforums.org/thread-9924.html

But if you make claims based on a subjective assumption about consciousness that you cannot prove, you are basically tossing up some personal preference! Why make the assumption at all when it adds nothing to the validity of your argument?

I'm worried that if I actually think about that for too long I'll convince myself never to speak again for the simple fact that everything is based on some fundamental assumption.

I am also confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness. But why do you believe there is not room for for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts outside of your perception?

According to my definition of existence, things are only real if they are able to be perceived using consciousness. I can't even fathom alternative dimensions, more than the words and their definitions anyway, let alone use any of my senses to realize their existence. If things did exist, simply by being, rather than by consciousness, that would allow alternative dimensions, multiple universes, etc. as I said earlier.

I can perceive physicalism in the sense that I am able to imagine it being true, and if that in turn means that my conscience is perceiving it then I suppose I do believe it exists. I'll have to sit down for a bit to think it through, as is often the case. I love paradoxes and things of that sort.