I think rossum’s point is that we have lots of examples of intelligence, such as everyone on the planet, and you need to prove our intelligence needs to have a cause, otherwise all intelligence is uncaused.
And of course you’ll need to prove that without appealing to your uncaused cause, or it’s circular.
Hang on. You admitted your proof cannot tell us everything about God, and now you’ve downgraded it from metaphysical certainty to mere psychological certainty. If B always follows A, then we might be psychologically certain that A causes B, but really all we can say is that in our experience we’ve always seen B when A. We can’t be certain that B without A, tomorrow we might observe B without A. That’s a long way from metaphysical certainty, and is why science is always provisional.