>I deny the validity of your argument, not mine, as I can account for the validity of my human reasoning.

See: By your argumentation "God exists because god exists" is a valid argument. So, in your worldview, all arguments of the type "A, therefore A" would have to be valid. That is pretty much denying that logic exists.
That is what I would call inconsistency.

>How is it that you know your human reasoning is valid again, you conveniently neglected to answer that part.

I don't, and I don't need to, because you oh so happen to be human, too.