Hi Rav. Thanks for your calming sanity. But don't you mean "But it's [usually ] not personal"?

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Quote "I never did get a buzz out of arguing"

It's an acquired taste

Seriously speaking, this is the process of learning in Yeshiva. Someone comes up with questions, other with answers, other with questions of the answer and so on. It really gives opportunity for a lot of creative thinking and problem solving. The best is when the participants have mutual respect for each other, so nothing's personal. Though there are those that get very passionate on their positions and scream at each other 'till the letters of the dedications of the Beis Medrish start falling off . But it's not personal.

Shalom again Rav.

You said "So the question is, according to Hume, what is the burden of proof?"[/QUOTE]. Would you care to elaborate on this? It sounds important, but I'm not sure I really understand what you mean in the context (see below) in which you said this.

Proof, the meaning of which I am still working on, along with other key words like truth and argument ( I'd better add discussion ) are such challenges. But it is obvious that we can't expect to just sound off and sound plausible, not with a quality audience like a yeshiva anyway. And insults are abuse, not arguments so we should try not to lower ourselves to do this, as well as its seeming to be contraindicated by the mitzvah of sensitivity, Ona'at Devarim, as discussed on http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/sensitivity.html.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Quote "Maybe an underlying cause of the difficulties we have been having in our discussions regarding the topic has been to do with the word "proof". I know I have been having conceptual problems with this word myself, including before this topic. I still do not know how to resolve this one sufficient to satisfy me."

This is the intention of my question in an earlier post, and I quote

"So the question is, according to Hume, what is the burden of proof?"

B"H

Rosemary,

I agree with you that we should stick to the topic for which this thread was started.

Part of ideological debate is to correct others where they might be wrong in their premise, without meaning any personal offence. We all have our idiosynchrasies.

I am confused by your postings. On one hand you said to me:

quote:

"I would like you to post that message here on this thread as it is actually a continuation of the debating that was going on before, with me included. This debate is a public thing and belongs on GY."

Next, you turn around and say just the opposite. Using your own words: "You have made far more public than I ever did. Now you have admitted authorship to the ideas I was addressing. Initially I did suggest you write to me at GY. Then I had second thoughts about this. I thought I could save you from having to do so."

Let us discuss this subject without casting affronts at one another. I will not rail on you (unless it is in a Private Post).

Your sincere friend,
David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

As it pertains to the "burden of proof" on our mechanical and non-mechanical realities, all the greatest minds that have ever lived have struggled to circumscribe just such a question. From logic, syllogism to science they have all concluded that it's not possible to prove anything. In science today we use Karl Popperian probabilistic model in which null hypotheses are invoked and we try to reject those null hypotheses within certain predetermined probabilities. The uncertainty principle comes into play and we conclude that we have a certain probability that reality is ordered one way.

There is no such thing as objective proof. The very tools we use to measure reality are just as much a part of the reality as the object being measured. For example, using your finger to measure the length of your big toe would not be considered objective by most. Our cosmic reality is no different. We devise methods that will be considered objective by consensus, but that's it....just consensus, not reality.

I have concluded that what we call religion and what we call science are the same thing viewed from opposite extremes. They both ask the same questions and they are both driven by consensus not proof.

quote:

As for Rob's question, "What do you see in Rosemary's public posts which indicate this particular lacking in faith?"

Rosemary had written in an earlier post on this thread: "I have always been struck by the wonder, incredible complexity, and stunning beauty and of our world and existence. It has always stirred me deeply. But I could never make the connection between it and G-d."

Reb David:

I think you are misunderstanding what must have been Rosemary's point.

Do I understand you correctly that her statement of not being able to make a certain connection you see as an admission of having a lacking in faith?

Let me respond with 3 examples of my disagreement with your approach.

I had occasion some dozen or so years ago to be involved with helping someone I respected to invite the Aish Discovery Seminar to near our area. I agreed without hesitation trusting the person and learning about Aish's purpose. However as I started to look into what the event was about, I was concerned that it would be trying to prove items of faith which needed no proof -- what if they tried to prove something and failed to provide that proof? Would that erode faith and trust in the concept?

Belief in something, I trust you would agree, is completely independent of whether that thing was proven or provable?

For my second case, perhaps we can agree that the mathematical discipline of calculus has validity?

Are you personally able to prove the fundamental theorom of calculus? I cannot. If I was lucky I might have been able to have followed some of its proof the first 399 times it was shown to me!

I'm also certain that there are court cases won where the proof was less than perfect, but certainly sufficiently convincing.

Suppose a lawyer on a winning side of such a case admits that they were not certain that the verdict would go their way for example because they were aware of some valid criticism of their evidence which could have been raised, and they weren't quite sure how convincingly they could have responded? Nevermind that a better poker player can win by a bluff!


For all these reasons, I think that Rosemary's words do not support the inference from them which you are making and I would urge you to retract your inference.

Surely you think of yourself as one who fulfills giving the benefit of the doubt?

Not speaking for Rosemary, of course, could it be that she (agreeing with Moshe's post on probability perhaps) that while she knows Hashem Created the World, because Hashem said so in His Torah, as told to us through Moshe Rabbeinu, were it _not_ for faith and trust and obligation to the tenets of Judaism, in the abstract, this connection has not been proven? Perhaps it could even be logically deduced? But to say it has been proven is perhaps something not possible in our world... yet... and that is partly how we still get to earn mitzvah points?

B"H
Moshe & Rob, Shalom!

The initial question on this thread, although implied, was "is our faith logical?" Logical, our faith is. We have given examples of simple logic as touching our faith, earlier in this thread. Whether or not this can be considered as proof, this would depend upon the definition of proof. What is proof? Can either of you give me a definition of proof?

In Jewish law, circumstantial evidence does not hold up as valid proof when convicting a man to a death sentence. Here, the law requires at least two competent witnesses that saw the man committing a crime that was quilty of the death sentence. However, in monetary matters, circumstantial evidence would hold up in a Jewish court as valid proof. What will we have to say then about the creation?

Rob, Rosemary has made it very clear (in the beginning of this thread) that she does not see the logic of saying that the earth (the created object) had to have an Intelligent Designer. All that we could ever say about this subject would serve as "no proof" to that effect, in her words. Yet, when pressed about this issue, she later claimed that she believed that G-d designed all things. She "believes" without drawing any connections between the two. In her own words: "Of course I believe God designed everything. I just don't think The Argument from Design proves this."

Throughout our discourse on this subject, when our sole objective was to help her and others see the logic behind "intelligent design," she repeatedly cited examples from others to the effect that "intelligent design" was a flawed theory or premise. She used these arguments to keep herself at bay, without understanding the connection between the created and the Creator.
Now since it is one of our principles of religion to believe in "intelligent design," just as Maimonides writes in his Code of Jewish Law: "It is the most basic of basic principles and a support for wisdom to know that there is something [namely G-d] that existed before anything else did and that He created everything that there is. Everything in the skies, on the ground and in between exists only because of the fact that He created them."

Maimonides did not speak about "proof," per se. He rather spoke about our "knowing." "Knowing" has the connotation of applied reason, that is, of using our faculties of reason and being convinced of a certain thing that either was, or is, or that is to be, without entertaining doubts about that thing.

David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

David, Rob, Rosemary,
We are having issues of nomenclature here. First of all, "Intelligent Design" is a flegling theory. But "intelligent design" is also a concept. Oftentimes people are talking about the concept and others assume they are talking about the theory.
The theory, at this point, is iffy. There are some problems with the premises of the theory although its promulgators are well meaning. The concept, on the other hand, is very much vibrant and I think ultimately it is the one we will end up "proving".

As for faith; the Jew's faith is different from the faith of a goy. The faith of a goy hopes for things unseen and has an element of uncertaintly to it. A Jew's faith is different in that a Jewish neshama already knows what to believe because the Kadosh Baruch Hu imprinted it. So it already knows. To a Jew faith is the process of bringing out that knowledge.
So is faith logical? Absolutely! Can reality be proven? Not in our current paradigm because we are "veiled", so to speak. We don't have the tools to establish "proof".

Moshe,I have no trouble with where you are coming from in this and understand. I have some background in maths and science; am a qualified and trained social "scientist"; and have dabbled heavily in the philosophy of science. It is not the sort of thing to try to talk to certain people about as they just can't get it and make all sorts of unreal statements - just can't talk to them - a typical paradigm clash (speaking of which, what do you think of Thomas Kuhn?).

In philosophy, my interests lie in just this sort of thing, in one form all the other.

quote:

There is no such thing as objective proof.

quote:

Originally posted by Rosemary:
Moshe,I have no trouble with where you are coming from in this

My dear Rosemary,

Lol. I had a big laugh here! That was funny!

David

Rosemary,
I am in agreement with Kuhn. I go farther than he does and embrace religion as part of science and it too follows the same paradigm shifts. Brilliant thinkers improve on what they are taught. Innovators question what they are taught. The two are wired differently. That's why paradigm shifts are always accidental or controversial in their generation. Some of the Rambam's works were burned, there was a cherem on the Shulchan Aruch when Rav Karo first wrote it. And examples abound where innovators get into trouble because they are oblique to the prevailing paradigm. In science it's even more acute. The peer review system presumes that an innovator has peers. But by definition, innovation has no peer. The peer review system is designed to define the box. Whenever anyone decides to think outside the box, the system falls apart. That's why the consesus almost always rules against the paradigm shifts.

Thank you very much , Rob. As Moshe Yisraeli who said on another topic: "Usually the insulted person is the one least capable of defending himself against insults. Usually a third person speaking on his behalf does a better job. That's why we have spokespersons". . I am glad to have you speak for me, as you spoke. I think you did a very good job at capturing the essence of the matter. I appreciate your kindness in helping me in relation to a most serious accusation.

In addition, ike to draw attention to the reality of mystical experience. Unfortunately I know this can be a difficult subject and I hope it does not cause disquiet among my friends. If the real phenomenon of mystical experience is factored in, all will become clear, except to those who are committed only to the reality of what we can measure - which seems a strange sort of position for a Jew, from my perspective within Judaism.

Unfortunately I am now off for the day. Yes, I did go on the computer this morning and now I am late. Catch you later .

quote:

Belief in something, I trust you would agree, is completely independent of whether that thing was proven or provable?....

For all these reasons, I think that Rosemary's words do not support the inference from them which you are making and I would urge you to retract your inference.

Surely you think of yourself as one who fulfills giving the benefit of the doubt?

Not speaking for Rosemary, of course,

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

Rosemary,
I think you are being too hard on David. I don't know what transpired between the two of you but from what I know of both of you, I'm sure there was a misunderstanding somewhere. I urge you both to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Having passionate discussion and debate is our tradition. Recently we saw crazy pillaging through the streets and killing one another because someone drew a cartoon. I thought to myself, would a Jew ever do such a thing? Never! A Jew will argue with you to death and after the argument you go and eat. That's our tradition. So try to look at the bigger Jewish picture. We are family and we are stuck with one another and the regulars on this blog are the finest Jews I've ever met. I'm just priviledged to be able to discuss, visit, chat with all of you.

quote:

If the real phenomenon of mystical experience is factored in, all will become clear, except to those who are committed only to the reality of what we can measure - which seems a strange sort of position for a Jew, from my perspective within Judaism.

There does seem to be a mindset of compartmentalizing Judaism into only that which is described in Gemara and Halacha, built squarely upon the Principles of Faith (13 Principles) foundation, which I guess is also halacha, yet which captures the essence of how to distinguish that which can be logically deduced, and that which is either mystical or accepted on faith, or adhered to regardless of logical reason.

Perhaps if this is accurate it might describe a lack of common experience which could become key to seeing how words in these threads, and read between the lines, are not facilitating as amicable communication as possible?

Hi I'm new here.I've only read a little bit of this thread and I have a kvetch already.

Intelligent Design is perfectly logical as Rabbi Amnon Yitzhag so wonderfully illustrated by arguing the logic of a watch just happening to evolve over billions of years

however it does not logically follow that therefore the universe was designed by G-d as Orthodox Jews understand Him
the fact that in the USA, Intelligent Design is currently being touted primarily by people who worship a man as part of a triune G-d proves this

furthermore Hindu's can agree with Intelligent Design and remain Hindu's, likewise with Muslim's and other faiths and peoples

premise-the Universe was Intelligently Designed conclusion-therefore G-d exists
the conclusion is fallacy

people who are waiting for the aliens to land would have logical reasons to disagree with this conclusion

and before anyone else says it-no I am not waiting for the aliens to land and yes I believe in G-d however Intelligent Design does not prove that the Creating Intelligence is in fact G-d and not some aliens beyond our comprehension

SaraChana,
Welcome to GY. Of course Intelligent Design implies a designer. Whether you want to call that designer G-d, is a different question. But definitely if there is intelligent design, there has to be a designer.

quote:

Originally posted by sharachana:
premise-the Universe was Intelligently Designed conclusion-therefore G-d exists
the conclusion is fallacy

Sharachana, Welcome to GY!

Allow me to repeat what was previously stated in this thread:

"The heavens declare the glory of G-d," meaning, any contemplative man will come to the realisation that they were created by a Higher Being (G-d), i.e. the existence of G-d. Most would agree, too, that since the heavens and the earth were designed in order to sustain life, that that G-d who made them had to be of a good nature. Otherwise, why would He want to sustain life? But who that G-d was, or what He expects from man in return, could not have fully been known until Mount Sinai. ... Intelligent Design affords a logical base concerning G-d's existence. Yet, this is not saying that we know everything there is to know about G-d.

David

Yes, on reflection, I think you are right Rob. The dichotomy doesn't just stem from the Greeks or the enlightenment. It may be a division, as you suggested, between modes of experiencing. This wretched word "experience" keeps cropping up and I guess I'd better start paying it more attention per se.

Left brain versus right brain ? But, if so, where does soul fit? My head hurts.

Looking at this another way, I have had a very longstanding interest in finding if there is some way to find a balance between these two ways of experiencing and hence dealing with the existence in which we find ourselves. I know I've been hampered by my lack of genius and sufficient dedication to the task. But maybe the task is inherently impossible. And now a little memory is going "Tinkle, tinkle: Go and look at Joseph Soloveitchik's "Halachic Man". I think I'll go and do that. I think that maybe he talked of something relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

If the real phenomenon of mystical experience is factored in, all will become clear, except to those who are committed only to the reality of what we can measure - which seems a strange sort of position for a Jew, from my perspective within Judaism.

There does seem to be a mindset of compartmentalizing Judaism into only that which is described in Gemara and Halacha, built squarely upon the Principles of Faith (13 Principles) foundation, which I guess is also halacha, yet which captures the essence of how to distinguish that which can be logically deduced, and that which is either mystical or accepted on faith, or adhered to regardless of logical reason.

Perhaps if this is accurate it might describe a lack of common experience which could become key to seeing how words in these threads, and read between the lines, are not facilitating as amicable communication as possible?

B"H
If I might bring down excerpts from Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed," where he shows us, in his own peculiar way, how one might be able to understand, through logic (but NOT proof), that G-d created the orbs and spheres of the heavens, &c.
He concludes by saying that every Jewish person is required to contemplate the heavens and their bodies, in order to enhance his own belief in G-d.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(Part II, ch. XVI) "…I will not deceive myself, and consider dialectical methods as proofs; and the fact that a certain proposition has been proved by a dialectical argument will never induce me to accept that proposition, but, on the contrary, will weaken my faith in it, and cause me to doubt it. For when we understand the fallacy of a proof, our faith in the proposition itself is shaken. It is therefore better that a proposition which cannot be demonstrated be received as an axiom, or that one or two opposite solutions of the problem be accepted on authority…

(Part II, ch. XVII) Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its forms, the thing itself, which has gone through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, e.g., the human ovum as contained in the female's blood when still included in its vessels; its nature is different from what it was in the moment of conception, when it is met by the semen of the male and begins to develop ; the properties of the semen in that moment are different from the properties of the living being after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake; and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion; you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions. Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man has never seen a woman or any female being; he asks some person how man has come into existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: "Man begins his existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him." The orphan will naturally ask : "Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?" The answer will be, "No." Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the following manner: "When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time he dies, and cannot move any longer: how then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be dead: how then can man remain alive for months without taking food? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death would follow in a short time, and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months without that function! Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open! Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the hands and stretch out the legs, if, as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect." This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and develop in the manner described.

If philosophers would consider this example well and reflect on it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. Their arguments are therefore no objection whatever to our theory…

… we do not maintain that the materia prima has been produced in the same manner as man is produced from the ovum, and that it can be destroyed in the same manner as man is reduced to dust. But we believe that God created it from nothing, and that since its creation it has its own properties, viz., that all things are produced of it and again reduced to it, when they cease to exist; that it does not exist without Form; and that it is the source of all genesis and destruction. Its genesis is not like that of the things produced from it, nor its destruction like theirs; for it has been created from nothing, and if it should please the Creator, He might reduce it to absolutely nothing. …

…The principle laid down in the foregoing must be well understood; it is a high rampart erected round the Law, and able to resist all missiles directed against it. Aristotle, or rather his followers, may perhaps ask us how we know that the Universe has been created ; and that other forces than those it has at present were acting in its Creation, since we hold that the properties of the Universe, as it exists at present, prove nothing as regards its creation? We reply, there is no necessity for this according to our plan; for we do not desire to prove the Creation, but only its possibility; and this possibility is not refuted by arguments based on the nature of the present Universe, which we do not dispute. When we have established the admissibility of our theory, we shall then show its superiority…

(Part II, ch. XIX) It has been shown that according to Aristotle, and according to all that defend his theory, the Universe is inseparable from God; He is the cause, and the Universe the effect; and this effect is a necessary one; and as it cannot be We, however, hold that all things in the Universe are the result of design, and not merely of necessity; He who designed them may change them when He changes His designexplained why or how God exists in this particular manner, namely, being One and incorporeal, so it cannot be asked concerning the whole Universe why or how it exists in this particular way. For it is necessary that the whole, the cause as well as the effect, exist in this particular manner, it is impossible for them not to exist, or to be different from what they actually are. This leads to the conclusion that the nature of everything remains constant, that nothing changes its nature in any way, and that such a change is impossible in any existing thing. It would also follow that the Universe is not the result of design, choice, and desire; for if this were the case, they would have been non-existing before the design had been conceived.
But not every design is subject to change; for there are things which are impossible, and their nature cannot be altered, as will be explained. Here, in this chapter, I merely wish to show by arguments almost as forcible as real proofs, that the Universe gives evidence of design …

According to our theory of the Creation, …we say that there is a being that determines the direction and the velocity of the motion of each sphere; but we do not know the reason why the wisdom of that being gave to each sphere its peculiar property. If Aristotle had been able to state the cause of the difference in the motion of the spheres, and show that it corresponded as he thought to their relative positions, this would have been excellent, and the variety in their motions would be explained in the same way as the variety of the elements, by their relative position between the centre and the surface; but this is not the case, as I said before.

There is a phenomenon in the spheres which more clearly shows the existence of voluntary determination; it cannot be explained otherwise than by assuming that some being designed it: this phenomenon is the existence of the stars. The fact that the sphere is constantly in motion, while the stars remain stationary, indicates that the substance of the stars is different from that of the spheres. Abu-Nasser has already mentioned the fact in his additions to the Physics of Aristotle. He says: " There is a difference between the stars and the spheres; for the spheres are transparent, the stars are opaque; and the cause of this is that there is a difference, however small it may be, between their substances and forms." So far Abu-Nasser. But I do not say that there is a small difference, but a very great difference; because I do not infer it from the transparency of the spheres, but from their motions. I am convinced that there are three different kinds of substance, with three different forms, namely:—(1) Bodies which never move of their own accord; such are the bodies of the stars; (2) bodies which always move, such are the bodies of the spheres; (3) bodies which both move and rest, such are the elements. Now, I ask, what has united these two bodies, which, according to my opinion, differ very much from each other, though, according to Abu-Nasser, only a little? Who has prepared the bodies for this union? In short, it would be strange that, without the existence of design, one of two different bodies should be joined to the other in such a manner that it is fixed to it in a certain place but does not combine with it. It is still more difficult to explain the existence of the numerous stars in the eighth sphere; they are all spherical; some of them are large, some small; here we notice two stars apparently distant from each other one cubit; there a group of ten close together; whilst in another place there is a large space without any star. What determined that the one small part should have ten stars, and the other portion should be without any star? and the whole body of the sphere being uniform throughout, why should a particular star occupy the one place and not another? The answer to these and similar questions is very difficult, and almost impossible, if we assume that all emanates from God as the necessary result of certain permanent laws, as Aristotle holds. But if we assume that all this is the result of design, there is nothing strange or improbable; and the only question to be asked is this: What is the cause of this design? The answer to this question is that all this has been made for a certain purpose, though we do not know it; there is nothing that is done in vain, or by chance. It is well known that the veins and nerves of an individual dog or ass are not the result of chance; their magnitude is not determined by chance; nor is it by chance, but for a certain purpose, that one vein is thick, another thin; that one nerve has many branches, another has none; that one goes down straight, whilst another is bent; it is well known that all this must be just as it is. How, then, can any reasonable person imagine that the position, magnitude, and number of the stars, or the various courses of their spheres, are purposeless, or the result of chance? There is no doubt that every one of these things is necessary and in accordance with a certain design; and it is extremely improbable that these things should be the necessary result of natural laws, and not that of design.

The best proof for design in the Universe I find in the different motions of the spheres, and in the fixed position of the stars in the spheres. For this reason you find all the prophets point to the spheres and stars when they want to prove that there must exist a Divine Being. Thus Abraham reflected on the stars, as is well known; Isaiah (xl. 26) exhorts to learn from them the existence of God, and says, "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things ? " Jeremiah [calls God] "The Maker of the heavens "; Abraham calls Him "The God of the heavens" (Gen. xxiv. 7); [Moses], the chief of the Prophets, uses the phrase explained by us (Part I., chap. Ixx.), "He who rideth on the heavens" (Deut. xxxiii. 26). The proof taken from the heavens is convincing; for the variety of things in the sublunary world, though their substance is one and the same, can be explained as the work of the influences of the spheres, or the result of the variety in the position of the substance in relation to the spheres, as has been shown by Aristotle. But who has determined the variety in the spheres and the stars, if not the Will of God?"

B"H
CORRECTION The following text should have rather read:

(Part II, ch. XIX) "It has been shown that according to Aristotle, and according to all that defend his theory, the Universe is inseparable from God; He is the cause, and the Universe the effect; and this effect is a necessary one; and as it cannot be explained why or how God exists in this particular manner, namely, being One and incorporeal, so it cannot be asked concerning the whole Universe why or how it exists in this particular way..."

teaching "Intelligent Design" is just as likely to lead people to Christianity as to Judaism,

in fact it's more likely to lead to Christianity because it is primarily a Christian project

so while I agree that Intelligent Design serves as a logical way of pondering the Creator or "Designer" I would be leary of backing it wholeheartedly