The author never makes the case for any particular conception of a deity. In fact, his indirect diatribe could just as easily be taken as an argument in favor of theological noncognitivism. He rejects "theistic personalism" (which is the overwhelmingly accepted understanding of God in Western societies and Abrahamic religions) in favor of "classical theism" - that God is pure form, immutable (does not change), impassible (cannot be acted on), existing outside of time, yet also omnipotent and omniscient. Whether or not this God intervenes in human affairs is not stated, so for all I know the author could be arguing a deist position. Yet he seems to accept the Catholic tradition, which would require one to prove a whole additional set of properties beyond an abstract deity, but nonetheless it implies that he does believe in an interventionist God. Actually, classical theism seems to imply this cyclic and self-referential belief of God being omniscient by the mere fact of his existence and that "miracles" and intervention are in fact the result of God being the sustainable cause of ordinary events by default.

Muddled, unfalsifiable, self-abetting sophistry, in my mind. But it's creative, I suppose.