Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

These may be reasons that you believe whatever you do, but they are not rational arguments.  I think you could recognize this easily in any context other than magic book.  Let's find out.

It would be impossible for my parents to get me these gifts - therefore they came from the gift fairy.
-Obviously, it may not..in fact...be impossible for your parents to get you said gifts...but even if it were true that they couldn't... that would not mean, imply, suggest, or prove that they came from the gift fairy.

These gifts exist - therefore the gift fairy exists.

A sound argument, since if one can replace the deity in his argument with literally anything, and the argument loses nothing, this surely demonstrates a very poorly reasoned argument, on its own. 

Christian apologists cites their chosen book, to make identical claims, that are unsupported by any objective evidence, and draw the same irrational conclusion using the same logical fallacy. . 

They don't seem to grasp the burden of proof lies with the person making claim, and logically no one needs to disprove that claim, or offer any alternative explanation. Unless of course they make a contrary claim, since disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim. 

He doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that his conclusion is irrational, even if the premises in his claims were true. Though of course he hasn't demonstrated those predictions coming true is impossible, merely asserted it,  yet it is an objective fact that humans can guess and make very accurate predictions against massive odds, and be correct, it happens every day of the week all over the world in lotteries for example. 

 In religion a prophecy is defined as "a message that has been communicated to a person (typically called a prophet) by a supernatural entity."

Now I do not believe this is possible of course, unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated that a deity is possible, and exists, (outside of the human imagination). This would need to be done first, then this claim would need to also be supported by sufficient objective evidence. He's putting his cart in front of his horse. 

To claim anything is true, solely because we don't have, or can't, produce an alternative explanation or evidence is a logical fallacy, it is irrational by definition. Until he understands and acknowledges that fact, he is doomed to go on making the same irrational argument, as of course we see him doing here.