First, since you apparently didn't bother reading them, I'll repeat the OTHER statements from >>361:
> 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".
> 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?