Classical foundationalism has typically held, as phantomreader42 argues here, that the only beliefs that are properly basic are "true by definition (x=x, there's no such thing as dry water), evident to the senses...or a self-evident axiom..." But is this necessarily the case? Think about it, if we are formulating our epistemology on that statement, then it should be consistent within its own system, shouldn't it? But the statement "A properly basic belief needs to either be something true by definition (x=x, there's no such thing as dry water), evident to the senses (which your god isn't), or a self-evident axiom" itself is not true by definition, it is not evident to the senses, and it is not a self-evident axiom. It's simply an arbitrary definition adopted by some people in order to justify their belief system. In other words, poor phantomreader42 holds to a self defeating epistemology.
But surely, someone like phantomreader42 could say, this is a good epistemic rule by which to come to knowledge of the world. I don't think it is. If that were our foundation, we would have no reason to trust in the very things it proposes we rely on. If we are simply the products of chance and natural selection by means of random mutations 'choosing' survivable traits, then our brains have developed only to help us survive. If that is the case, then any studies or methods of coming to knowledge we have developed rest on this brain that evolved to survive. So if certain beliefs are beneficial to survival, they will continue to be utilized by the brain to continue our life. If this is the case, then there may be false beliefs that we think are true because they would help us to survive. If this is the case, then there is little reason to trust any of the beliefs we hold to actually correspond to reality. Even the belief that our studies have led us to the belief that our minds have evolved randomly would be suspect.
The naturalist would have trouble arguing against this, because they themselves postulate that humanity evolved religion, which in their minds is a false belief, to aid in survival. Not only that, but we could conceive of other false beliefs that would help us survive. Say a caveman thought that it is true that the best thing that could happen to him would be to be eaten by a dinosaur. Say too that he thinks the best way to go about being eaten is to run like heck every time he sees this dinosaur. Of course it is false that the best way to be eaten by a dinosaur is to run from it. But it helps our caveman friend to survive, yet it is a false belief.
With this in mind, it is hard to see any reason to hold that any of our beliefs would be true using this method of epistemology.
However, if we hold as our foundation that God exists and has created our minds to come to true knowledge, then we have a good, non-self-defeating epistemic foundation on which to build further beliefs. We can be assured that a maximally great being would not create our senses to fool us, but to give us pretty good information about the world we live in. Further, we could trust that our methods of reasoning and scientific inquiry would lead us to further truth if followed faithfully. We'd have a ground for the laws of logic, for different sorts of abstract objects, and for the ethical morality that is inherent in logical reasoning (ie it's bad to use fallacious arguments).
The Christian world view is reasonable, and is internally consistent, and I see no reason to not hold it as the foundation of one's belief system.