It sounds like papist is arguing man's application of logic to be a more reliable and objective alternative to pursuing the truth than personal experience. I'm interested in seeing you deal with the issue within this comparative context.
The question is not so abstract.
In the first place, in the context of the existence of a particular material
object, it is untrue. The only
acceptable evidence traces back to personal experience, directly or through the proxy of various apparatuses. After that comes testimony, and reason has a part in its evaluation. But without observation, we have only speculation.
Also, we again are not
talking about logic and reason in the abstract. Causality, for example, is empirically derived phenomenology; it is not a principle of logic at all, but an observed property of the natural world. And therefore, appeal to the "first cause" argument relies upon acceptance that causality works universally in the way that we perceive it to be working in ordinary existence. Now the physicists no longer accept this as an axiom, because it appears that on a small enough scale, there are uncaused events. That alone is good enough for a refutation, but even before that, one is not compelled to believe that causality is universal.
And again (and this is the most important point, and the one that nobody seems to be willing to step up to) identifying a First Cause, etc. with the LORD God is not a done deal. For example, in pagan systems it is possible to believe in a First Cause-- which is not a deity, although there are (they perceive) deities. Or one can take an extreme pantheist position and thus have a "god" who is utterly impersonal. It is ironic that Christianity in particular is dependent upon personal experience and testimony-- that is, the witness of the apostles to the Risen Jesus. You cannot prove that
with an ontological argument, so why bother with them?