> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.

Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".

> Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way)

• God is the necessary predondition for the laws of logic.
• The Bible is infallibly, absolutely true.
• There appear to be contradictions in the Bible.
• The breaks the rule of non-contradiction, which means the laws of logic do not hold!
• And since they do not hold, apparently God does not exist!

That's how they detract from your message. Now, please refute this argument.

> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.

So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?