1.

If the laws of logic depend on God, then if God possibly does not exist, then some law of logic possibly fails. 2. No law of logic can possibly fail. 3. Then God necessarily exist. 4. But there is a possible world in which God does not exist. 5. Therefore, logic is not dependent on God.

Dan would then have to use his reason autonomously to form an ontological argument to rebut premise 4. But if Dan went on to form an ontological argument, then he would refute his own worldview since he would presuppose his reasoning to validate his reasoning by autonomously reasoning for the ontological argument...and that's viciously circular. The reason is his presupposition of "God exists" is what's being questioned, so he has to give an ontological argument to negate premise 4 to defend his presupposition; but the irony there is that he has to abandon his presuppositional worldview to defend his presuppositional worldview.