The first one

Thank you very much.
But I left more confused than I came in, throughout the introduction you wrote at length that one starts from the premise that he has faith in his own eyes.

If so, why would he wonder about the very implicit assumption that there is a God and ask where it comes from? That is precisely the purpose of evidence, even if he has no external justification for believing in God, the evidence is still valid…

Or let me ask it another way, if he finds no basis for believing in God (for example, he does not accept the arguments from the third conversation) should he abandon faith in his own evidence!? He is not an atheist who positively assumes that there is no God, he is just not convinced by the rest of the evidence.

Everything was explained very well there, and here too. A person can be satisfied with intuition and then not need evidence. This is true for any evidence of any kind. But many people are not satisfied with this and look for evidence and arguments. "revealing" evidence does not prove that there is a God, but only that I believe in him. Therefore, I can still wonder and look for evidence for this belief of mine.

There was a bit of a delay, so I'll summarize briefly:
I asked why we need a second-order justification for revealing evidence regarding our ability to see. If we don't accept that justification, will we abandon the basic belief (eyes that see correctly).
To that, you replied:
He who is satisfied with that is enough for him.
Secondly, the evidence does not prove that there is a God, only that I believe in him.

So, regarding the first option, do you think that philosophically we need that additional second-order explanation? It is not unnecessary, after all, any philosophical investigation into something external to us stops after an infinite regression of investigations, the initial and basic assumption is always that we think correctly. If so, the revealing evidence shows that behind this ability stands a Creator. But direct evidence for the Creator (philosophical-inductive) will always come later..
It's a bit like what you wrote in the book about the difference between physical and logical inference regarding the statement "If there is rain, there are clouds."

As for the second explanation you wrote, it's even stranger, and it reminds me of what you answered Hillel several times in the first conversation about ontological evidence, after he claimed that evidence can only prove that God exists in the mind but not in reality. There you dismissed Hillel's question because it was a purely skeptical claim, but why not here? (Moreover, if you don't believe your own eyes and that you are coordinated, then how do you even know that the world is complex. Maybe it's just solipsism.)

I answered everything.

Can you still answer? At least one last time, because it seems to me that the things I wrote were indeed not mentioned before.

Okay, one last time.
These are not two possibilities but two sides of one: this argument proves that I believe in God and not that there is a God, and if someone is not satisfied with having an intuition about the existence of God, they will look for evidence.
I do not see a question that needs to be answered in connection with this picture. It is clear that every philosophical argument starts from intuitive assumptions, but there is certainly room for suspicion as to whether this intuition is real or just built into me (from education or environment or just biases). That is why some people will look for evidence. Intuition is not a trump card in every situation, and a critique of logic is required.
The second question was answered in my post above.

Thank you very much! I think I understand.
I have another question, but it is related to a slightly different discussion in my opinion, so I would be happy to open a new question.