1) You are just taking the word God and applying it to a concept. Problem is we can take any word and apply it to the same concept. That's why I feel the word God is useless in everyday arguments. When you say God, everyone is going to assume different things. It's ineffective. Usually when people create a word it is with the goal to have a specific definition different from other words so that when the word is used people understand what a person means. At this point, the word God has too many definitions, and by some people's standards it has no one specific definition.

2) There's no absolute proof that there is any entity separate from and outside of existence that acts upon it. It may be difficult for us to envision that existence itself has a life of its own. It may not fit our rules of logic. That doesn't mean it isn't possible. Also, there's problems with the argument that there has to be something or someone outside of and separate from existence that acts upon it because then it begs the question of who acted upon the original actor. The premise itself is contradictory. It says that a thing can only be acted upon by an external source and then goes on to say there's something that doesn't follow those rules. It's either one way or the other.

3) Saying that people whose intuition implies there's a God are more correct than those who have different intuitions is stepping outside of logic. It's unverifiable. You are going to have millions of people who say their intuition is correct at the same time conflicting with your intuition. All that really does is produce people who are so sure of themselves that they are willing to inflict pain on people with different perspectives. That is not productive at all. People that are more humble and aren't seduced by intuitions are generally more considerate of others and others values.