When a person is extremely experienced in a field they absorb a lot of information subliminally. That gives rise to an intuitive sense of what is wrong, which should then be treated as a hypothesis to be tested. If this is what you are calling intuition then I don't have too much argument with your statement, other than the poor syntax. If you are saying that intuition should replace examination and testing then you're on your own

Which of my definitions of belief are you talking about? How can anybody listen to their intuition heavily?

Intuition and reasoning are from different yet connected cerebral hemispheres.

I'd reason that successful intuition is predicated upon knowledge.

I'd like to change my choice to door three thanks Monty.

Consider, if you will, the complete inability to intuitively predict cards.

Much of what people call intuition is no such thing, it is the workings of the unconscious drawing on memories and experience and extrapolating likely outcomes.
Elsewise it is instinct, survival trait we are born with and which operate at a genetic level.
It is the misinterpretation of these unconscious extrapolations and instincts that many people mistake for religious experience, miracles and faith promoting experiences.
There need not be a paranormal explanation for anything the conscious mind finds inexplicable the human body and brain are capable of so much more than we realise at a waking level.