Probing the underlying structures of our own reasoning, assumptions, values, and beliefs is no different from anything else we can think about.
This is not just standard procedure in many other areas of thought. It is considered matter-of-factly necessary in relation to any area in which truth-claims must be adjudicated because of the implications of the possibility of error.
Design and verification issues always come up when something goes wrong.
The design and structure of the World Trade Center towers have been the subject of extremely focused, detailed, and complex analysis since 9-11, including retracing the reasoning for various design and construction decisions in that project.
So why then is straightforward analysis claimed to be unable to arrive at a reliably true position concerning God or even operational values common to believers and atheists?
More importantly, why is the unknowability claim considered true?
And the issue of God is by no means the only area that can be questioned in this way, as we shall see.