The problem is he's doing it within the framework of epistemology, which is supposed to be a field dealing with what constitutes knowledge. "I dunno: therefore God" is not only an non-academic way of approaching the problem, it's intellectually dishonest.
He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.
He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.
