Question

Thank you for this important discussion
One point I felt was missing:
Rogel Alpher kept saying, rather dismissively, that the arguments and evidence for the existence of God are ultimately just intuition, and that it is hard to conduct an entire life on that basis, as opposed to science, which is certain and proven.
The problem with this argument is that all of science is built on precisely that same intuition of causality, in the sense discussed by Hume, which was mentioned at the beginning of the discussion; and the correlations he saw yesterday are also not an induction for what will happen tomorrow, as Hume argued.
On the other hand, Rogel Alpher constantly speaks and writes about morality and lives by it, even though morality too is a product of intuition and has no proof, and he too conducts his life based on intuition. (Not that this would bother a devotee of Continental philosophy, for whom the question of creation matters only insofar as it arouses wonder.)