Intuition and providence or mere providence

Explain about thinking
Perceptions about sensory
Coordination works smoothly
Its characteristic is strong evidence
Its outcome is the richness of life

Thank you very much.
I think that regarding the laws of nature, it is easy to justify that what we think is true is indeed true. Because God has already created coordination in the creation stage between the creatures and the knowledge of the universe. For example, that the simple thing is the right thing.

Why do you know that there is coordination according to your method? It seems to me that this is the reasonable assumption since we manage to predict the world quite well. And it is also an axiomatic assumption of thinking. But do you have other or additional reasons??

In any case, according to your method, if you observe the world through a scientific method, then you need to explain how it is precisely structured, and this sounds to me like an impossible explanation. Because this is a part that is not accessible to us in the world or to the Prophet, a kind of words from Professor Leibowitz about the psychophysical problem.

I know because I see (=with the mind's eye, intuition). According to you, this is just a conclusion that you draw and not direct vision. I think the description of direct vision is more consistent with our feelings.
I don't see any reason why I should have to explain anything. It simply exists because that's how I feel. And why do feelings need an explanation? Wouldn't this explanation need an explanation?
But that doesn't matter. Even if you define the coordination between thought and the world as a coordination that has no mechanism that puts it into practice, there is still de facto coordination and de facto this can be defined as a cognitive perception. There is no real difference between the two possibilities.

I agree, indeed the perception is that you don't think you understand correctly and only then conclude that there is coordination between you and the world, but it is simply clear to you to understand what is correct. But you still need to think that that IPA is coordinated with the world and then we returned to a skeptical question that requires an argument from epistemology. But here it is one step lower and perhaps this is an advantage.

I agree that ordinary sensations do not need to be explained, but IPA seems to need to be explained for several reasons.
First, compared to physical senses here it is really not an intuitive perception like the sense of sight or hearing, and the fact is that there are many who deny that such a sense even exists. And your books are a novelty, not a strong one in our time.
-Many studies were conducted in the 1960s and denied all evidence for the existence of IPA.
-This adds more information to all matter in the world, as today every atom has an electron, a proton, a neutron, and information for synthetic and sensory detection.
Each of these examples is enough to show that this is a huge innovation.

What is the relationship between thought and the world?
There is a relationship between thought and what we are comfortable thinking about. And what we are comfortable thinking about is not always in harmony with the world.