I'm trying to wrap my mind around the Reformed Epistemology idea of the proof of God, but I am a total novice at this and I can't figure it out. As far as I can tell by the article "Without Evidence or Argument" by Kelly James Clark, the proof is
1) We should believe that God exists only with sufficient proof that God exists
2) We cannot get sufficient proof that God exists, because every argument would have to be justified by another argument infinitely
Therefore, we do not need proof that God exists.
I am completely baffled by this, and I'm pretty sure I'm reading it all wrong. I could really use a hand. Am I even understanding the premises at all?