A Flaw in Epistemological Arguments?
Annoying epistemological arguments suggest the very nature of knowledge - the ability to know you know - somehow proves the existence of the mighty one and suggest that knowledge of knowledge is loaded in at an immaterial bios level. It's at this pre-sense data level that we are given the template to consider the truth at all, they say, and without it we could reason about nothing.
Trouble is, kids are not born with the ability to reason in an epistemological way. Instead they project a consciousness stream made more irritating by their ability to recall their entire day in almost perfect detail. The point here is that epistemology is learned, not an inherent property. It takes many years for the human brain to develop the spatial and lateral capacity to juggle concepts like epistemology.
The mental structures required for this sort of thinking clearly take time to develop - and they are developed by a child's brain's interaction with the real world. Epistemological arguments in support of god, in my opinion, are just another example of the reification of human mental concepts.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck