Rabbi Lundin argues that all the proofs that there is the Holy One, blessed be He, speak about a creator external to us, and therefore they don't hold water, because the Holy One, blessed be He, is not external to us.
Rabbi Michi builds all the foundations of "the Holy One, blessed be He, is not just something external" on top of the discussion of whether there is any creator at all. Whether there is any cause for all things caused. Whether there is an objective grounding for morality that stands on its own and doesn't depend on emotion or subjectivity. And for all of these there is either a positive or negative answer.

Not discussing it because of claims that our intellect cannot grasp the One who created it does not seem right, because we have no other tool for connecting with the Holy One, blessed be He, besides the intellect. I think Rabbi Lundin's dismissal of rational arguments comes from the fact that he hasn't studied these topics in depth and immediately jumped to the statement "faith is neither intellect nor emotion," because his difficulties with rational inquiry are the difficulties of any beginning atheist.

The claim that every proof establishes a different god and not necessarily that same God is legitimate, because the proofs that the medieval authorities bring for the creation of the world do not prove that the one who created the world also gave the Torah. The giving of the Torah revealed to us that it is the same one, but that is an additional and different proof. Maybe that is why the Kuzari abandoned the philosophical proofs and focused on the experiential proof of the Jewish people and Mount Sinai…

From what Dvir brought, I don't see anything worth responding to. Everything is answered in the notebooks and in the book The First Being Found.
It may be that Rabbi Lundin, in the way of the followers of Rav Kook, is following Rav Kook here like a blind man in a chimney, who wrote somewhere that faith is neither intellect nor emotion.

The video doesn't work.

Now it works, thanks.

A few years ago I heard Rabbi Haggai Lundin's remarks.
Here is an article written based on his remarks: https://oneubior.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/%d7%99%d7%a1%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%9e%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%a7%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%95%d7%90-%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%94%d7%93%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%91%d7%95%d7%92%d7%a8%d7%aa/

Personally, I really don't understand what Rabbi Lundin wants, and if I were to accept his rejection of the proofs for the existence of God (those rejections are complete nonsense in my opinion), I would be left without God…

I watched 10 seconds and that was enough for me.
When someone says a sentence like, "That the world always existed and wasn't created by someone is admittedly an infinitesimal probability…"

He has no idea what probability is. And he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

I read what you wrote, and maybe I would have been willing to listen if you weren't being dismissive of the person, especially of a major rabbi who probably knows enough and examined these topics very well. Who are you to say that he has no idea what probability is?