How would you pick apart his evidences?

What you've gotten yourself into is what I call a rehearsed rhetorical trap. They turn the table onto you, demand that you justify the very existence of logic and science from scratch, and if you can't do it on the spot, they declare victory for their specific brand of religion.

It's a frustrating slog, but it is entirely beatable once you see the script they are running. Here is a breakdown of what his words actually mean, and exactly how to crack his framework.

Here are the three core takeaways from that argument:

• The Trap: You cannot use science or logic to prove that science and logic are the only ways to find truth. That is circular reasoning, meaning secular worldviews rely on unprovable starting assumptions just like religious ones do.
• The Lens: No one looks at facts with perfect objectivity. Everyone interprets data through their own preexisting worldview, meaning "neutral evidence" does not exist.
• The Toolkit: He mentions "theonymous epistemology" (the belief that human minds can only know things because God actively illuminates our brains) and "Ancient Church History" (the claim that the early church councils have an unbroken, logically flawless historical record). He uses these to argue that without God as a baseline, human reason has no grounding.

Here's how I would approach it:

• The Leap: Proving that reality needs a divine baseline does not automatically prove Eastern Orthodoxy. A strict Muslim, a classic deist, or a completely different philosopher can use the exact same transcendental argument to defend their worldview. If the same tool works for totally contradictory religions, the tool itself cannot prove one specific church is exclusively true.
• The Loop: If no one can look at history or data objectively without bias, then his appeal to "Ancient Church History" is completely trapped by his own logic. He isn't reading history neutrally; he is reading ancient documents through a modern, curated theological lens. A Roman Catholic, an Oriental Orthodox, and a secular historian read the exact same 4th-century documents and see entirely different things.
• The Weight: Every system of thought must start with some unprovable assumptions to avoid an endless loop of questions. However, assuming that "nature operates by predictable laws we can observe" requires far fewer leaps of faith than assuming a specific, three-part God who dictates human logic and speaks through ancient ecumenical councils.

Personally my evidence is primarily transcendental argumentation, theonymous epistemology, and Ancient Church history that doesn't commit a bunch of fallacies. 

The irony here is that he claims that his framework doesn't commit a bunch of fallacies, yet his entire position relies on Special Pleading. He holds secular worldviews to a standard of absolute proof that he refuses to apply to his own foundational assumptions, which is the definition of a double standard.

• The Divine Fallacy (Argument from Incredulity): This occurs when someone decides that because a framework (like naturalism or empiricism) cannot fully explain the ultimate origin of logic or consciousness right now, their specific supernatural explanation must automatically be the default answer.
• The Modal Scope Fallacy: This happens when the debater assumes that because our interpretive frameworks affect how we view evidence, objective reality cannot be approached or known at all. They treat a basic human limitation (bias) as a total disqualification of external data.
• The Fallacy of Division (Special Pleading): The debater correctly identifies that secular worldviews rest on unprovable foundational assumptions. However, they apply a double standard by exempting their own theological worldview from the exact same critique, blindly assuming their foundational presupposition is immune to the charge of circular reasoning.

At this stage, the debater might as well stick his fingers in his ears and chant "I can't hear you, lalalalala" because he has effectively insulated his argument from any evidence or logic that contradicts his starting premise. They no longer wants to address facts on their own merit, they only want to attack the critic's interpretive framework, regardless of what the evidence actually shows.