Isn't he just stating the argument from religious experience but in more words?
Something like:
1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)
2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.
3. There are no good reasons for thinking all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are delusive.
4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.
5. It is rational to believe that God exists.
Something like:
1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)
2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.
3. There are no good reasons for thinking all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are delusive.
4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.
5. It is rational to believe that God exists.
