Yes but taking into account what he has said in many interviews I don´t really expect him to tell the audience to which particular conclusion he came about God or the history of the resurrection since he considers it a very private issue. Of course I don´t know what he is reading, but I would say that to come to a reasonable conclusion he´d have to read some scholarly work, because treating the NT in the same psychological and metaphorical manner like the OT won´t give him a proper answer to that.
I guess this is something we can spread across the whole NT. Noone is going to ask you whether you belief Jesus is the son of God or if he walked on water, if you already said that you don´t know how to think about the resurrection. And looking at the God-question the only thing he clearly stated was that he wasn´t an atheist anymore but going further its getting blurry quickly and he avoids it. Though thats consistent of course with his position to treat this whole thing privately.
Well the Cain and Abel story, as well as the flood, are so loaded with potential theological perspectives and philosophical interpretations that I wouldn´t blame him, as long as he is making a consistent argument how he came to that conclusion. Similar to a text analysis in school. I think the only way you can have a wrong interpretation of e.g. a painting is if you can´t argue for it.
Keeping in mind that he said that he wanted to make the same presentations for every book of the bible like he did with Genesis and remembering how long he needed to get only Genesis done, I wouldn´t hold my breath.