He says its clear god exists, a universal intelligence. Then he says you cant prove or disprove god. If its clear because of the rules and harmony a universal intellgence (his way of saying god) exists, then his later equivocation is wrong. He bases his conclusion god exists on evidence of rules and laws and harmony, then says cant prove or,disprove. His own belief is evidence based, so hes proved it.
Hes trying to backtrack.
On the contrary. He personally believes in a God of order, but he correctly points out that such a belief is not falsifiable.
Seems to me he is saying it is philosophically “clear” to him that there is a god, but that he recognizes you can’t prove that scientifically. At least that’s my impression.