The point to be made in highlighting the use of Greco-Roman argumentation by religionists to prove the existence of God, is that the tactic works to detour the thoughts of opponents from the nature of scripture itself. Reason and logic can’t be used to explain talking snakes, cherubim, giant peoples, the temporary division of seas, talking bushes, magic tablets in gold boxes that kill people when touched wrong, the tearing down of stone walls with trumpets, etc. In this manner, the argument for God in the modern age has to be made in non-biblical ways, in order to keep notions of fiction out of the picture.
The way I see matters, if reason and logic is used to argue the probability of God, then what need is there for biblical text? What if I were to go ahead and let myself agree with someone who has argued successfully, that I have been convinced through reasoning: What then? Is this the part where the religionist says, “Okay, Great! Now let’s discuss how the Lord made the donkey speak…”
At this point, the very use of reason and logic that once reeled me in, it becomes irrelevant. I become a student to mythical fiction. In other words, I have been duped into believing things that have no basis in reason or logic, by the tactical efforts of someone who has used reason and logic to reel me in.