Is a prosecutor's argument that a jury has abiding convictions in their everyday lives tantamount to knowing something beyond a reasonable doubt permissible?

The People argue the prosecutor's argument here is permissible because rather than equating reasonable doubt to every day decisions, she argued "jurors have abiding convictions in their everyday lives that are tantamount to knowing something beyond a reasonable doubt." We find this distinction unpersuasive. Having an abiding conviction in a favorite food is a judgment in everyday life and thus is governed by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Brannon, supra, 47 Cal. at p. 97.)