Half Banana, I respectfully think your challenge rather begs the question. The indefensibly of faith is the point. Bear with me for a second, if you will.
Time and again in film the protagonist is lost, absolutely unable to come to the defense of the love interest, partner, country, world and/or universe. All logic, all reasonable evidence indicates the cause is lost, the victory of the villain certain. But still, the character taunted by the villain has faith, despite all evidence and odds, that the outcome will be just. This is a recurring motif, a part of our collective heroic arc narrative.
As a popular example, in ROTJ the Emperor retorts to Luke's comment that his overconfidence is his weakness, "Your faith in your friends is yours!" To ask Luke to defend his position despite the impossibility of the situation, despite the evident destruction of his friends playing out before his eyes, well.... that rather misses the point of this faith, doesn't it?
As Jehovah's Witnesses we were taught a different brew. We were taught a faith based on carefully selected scriptures, on "scientifically" backed evidence for the signs of the times, and on the visible evidence of God's earthly organization. This is well summed up in the old NWT's wooden translation of John 17:3 that eternal life comes from "taking in knowledge" of the only true God. They have recently corrected this monstrosity, but the ideology that predates the rendering survives. The point is, we were taught that once "the knowledge that gives everlasting life" is grasped then logic will lead to faith in God himself, his plan, and the organization he is using.
Christian faith is typically not of this sort. It is usually a personal belief or trust in the justice of God, often through a personal revelation or experience. Many of the Church Fathers went beyond this, setting an amazing and elaborate home for Christianity in the blend of science, philosophy and logic called theology. But, that is not what makes most Christians "Christian" today, if it ever did. I don't personally know of a single Christian who arrived at belief through this theological route, though there were some who did in centuries past.
To ask a person of faith to defend their faith against all logic, evidence, and "knowledge" is akin to asking the artist to defend his ascetic form against all practicalities of function. I put "knowledge" in quotes because many Christians I know have had what they claim is personal knowledge, a subjective experience which informs their faith, a sort of "road to Damascus" moment. So, they would claim they have knowledge you find inadmissible.
(For the record, I have no faith and now find the whole enterprise a complete dead end. However, I don't think it is fruitful to pursue the sort of challenge you have thrown down for the reasons I have attempted to illustrate,)