An Epistemological Argument

Recently I have been reading a book by J.P Moreland and William Lane Craig called 'Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and while reading the section on Epistemology I came up with this argument:

1. Epistemological scepticism is unavoidable because we can always ask 'how do we know that we can trust our senses and our reason' (not B); unless a certain type of God exists which gives us grounds to trust out senses and reason (A). (For example; if the Christian God exists, then it is expected that he would equip his creation with reliable facilities.)

But we cannot prove that such a God exists (A) by evidence without first assuming that our facilities are sound (B).
So you must either assume that a certain type of God exists (*A) and therefore our facilities are sound by implication or that our facilities are sound (*B)
If you assume that our facilities are sound (*B) then you never find any evidence to support your assumption. (not C)
But if you assume that a certain type of God exists (*A) then you can find much evidence to support your assumption. (C)
Therefore: it is rational (D) to assume that a certain type of God exists (A).

I will now put this argument into informal symbolic form if you prefer to read it that way:

(Not B) or (A)
If (B) then (A)
(A*) or (B*)
if (B*) then (not C)
if (A*) then (C)
If (C) then (D)
therefore;
If (A*) then (D)

what do you think?

- Kelvin R