Good critique of TAG (and how I predict Sye would respond)

Here's a summary of some of my problems with TAG.
However good skepticism is skeptical of itself so I'll put on my presup hat to see how Sye would respond.
There are 2 question wrapped up when Sye ask atheists to "account for logic".
The ontic question and the epistemic question. Sye's answer to the ontic question is that they are reflections of the mind of God. He answers to the epistemic question by saying God has revealed these laws to him in a way he can be certain of them.

*puts on presup hat*
TheoreticBS answers the ontic question by calling them "necessary pre-conditions of existence"ie every object that exists follows these laws by virtue of the fact that it exists. However he is unable to answer the epistemic question,, but he claims Christians cannot do it either. He question-begs by not considering the option that God could reveal it to Sye.
Then he turns around and says presups should account for God.I'm thinking of Sye saying that God is accounted for "by the impossibility of the contrary".If God didn't exist then it would be impossible to be certain of logic and nothing could be accounted for.

*takes off presup hat*
Do you think I did an accurate represntation of Sye's argument?