> That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.

You keep saying this. You have never once shown it to be true. Neither is it an answer to my question.

See, the argument "your worldview can't account for logic!" does not imply that your own can. You have to actually prove that first.

And I can just as well take the view that "logic exists", and thus be on equal footing with you, who claims "god implies logic and logic implies god". Both of us presuppose that we are right.

I could even claim, "logic exists, and god is contrary to logic", therefore, as logic exists (and you have to assume this or else you are not allowed to argue against me!), god does not exist!

(It is easy to see why the existence of god excludes logic - god is omnipotent, and can fool us into believing anything, thus we can never know if anything is true.)

> All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.

So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith? Why is "faith in A, which implies B" better than "faith in B"? Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.