The first one

peace! You wrote in the first part of a fourth conversation – regarding 'theological' and 'philosophical' arguments.
That if a person diagnoses himself as having faith in his own eyes, he necessarily believes that there is an intelligent creator who mediated this. But along the way you added another move that I didn't understand, in which you wrote:
That he will usually look for another (second-order) reason for believing in God and why to trust Him. (Page 337, third paragraph). [This idea is found again towards the end of the argument in the section responding to the evolutionary appeal, in that you explained that it was invalid because your belief in the theory of evolution is circular – so here too we see that you are asking for a second-order explanation].
But isn't it philosophically enough to have the claim and conclusion that comes from the first-order argument and stop there? And there's no need for second-order substantiation!? Just as you wrote – the trust that a person gives to his eyes is because it's simply his intuition. And his conclusion that there is a God is simply the conclusion of this argument.
So in conclusion, why is another second-order argument needed to validate this premise and conclusion?
Have a good week! And good night