Argument from Reason?

[Magilla]

Does it bother anyone else that these apologist arguments more often than not boil down to:

1. X thing exists.
2. X thing belongs to my god.
3. Therefore, my god exists, or else you can't use X.

Much of the christian intellectual edifice is just christians pointing at aspects of the world and shouting "mine!"

It's a step up from Van Til. If you even speak, no matter what is said, it's "proof" for Christian theism.

 I do appreciate the replies. But I don't see the issue in reading these arguments. I do see an issue with not thinking about them. I want to be able to engage them beyond just shouting "you're stupid" and walking away.

I look at it this way: Suppose we take it for granted that Logic and Reason come from "God". We can then use that Logic and Reason, and whilst obeying the rules of Logic and Reason, we can use them to make arguments against the existence of "God". Depending on the definition of "God", we can show that the god in question does not exist. This is an absurdity, and maybe qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum -

If Reason and Logic exist, "God" exists
Reason and Logic exist
Therefore "Gd" exists.

But also

If Reason and Logic exist they may be used to seek reasonable and logical conclusions
Reason and logic exist
Reason and Logic can be used to show that "God" is: an unreasonable conclusion; or an illogical conclusion; or the god* does not exist 
It is possible to show by means of Reason and Logic that "God"* does not exist.


So Reason and Logic both show that "God"* exists, and that "God"* does not exist.
Reductio ad absurdum?

Note: ( * = depending on how "God" is defined ).

The best theological defences to all of this seem to be that either . . .

The real* God" is not as defined in the presuppositions of any argument leading to the negation of "God's" existence

OR . . .

"God" is too 'Mysterious' for Reason and Logic to apply it, (   ).