This is a discussion by Randal Rauser dealing with why he does't make a certain kind of argument in debate about God. This discussion involves a debate going on now (Sunday morning) . Please listen to that discussion he puts it all out there and explains very clearly in a way I can't do.
Now I assume you listened and I say this based the knowledge you gained in listening. There is a distinction between properly basic and non properly basic. As with rain, you observed raining you have properly basic reason to assume its raiment, because you saw it.
In the old days before this kind of philosophy became popular we would have said it's empirical. We are not going to get empirical evidence of God but we have reciprocal evidence for the aspects of belief that make argument for God radioman and supportable. Rauser is using reformed luggage or Quinian language if one wants to use the secular philosophical label.
All of that is similar to things I've said for years, but I take my terminology from schlieramacher so I have a different nomenclature for it all. Its what it all the co determinate. Or God correlate. Or The Trace of God. The co determinate is like the sign tat marks God's presence. That can be empirical though God;s presence can't be. The best way to do that is through mystical experience.