Well he trots out the 'design argument', which isn't really an argument at all, irrefutable proof that there is a God.
His logic falls apart well before he gets to that point. He starts off by defining what it is to "know" then promptly forgets all that and claims to "know" that God exists.
This statement really says it all.
We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.
How's that for a contradiction in terms?
If you "know" something but have no concrete proof then you don't, in point of fact, "know" it at all. You "believe" it and that is a completely different thing.
PY
™ Version 4.2