@DoubleAA Firstly, let me apologize if I sounded overly antagonistic. I just very strongly disagree with the implication of your statement.

The point I was trying to make is that the definition of "proof" you are using is not a normal defnition and as a result is highly misleading. Not to mention that it does not seem clear from your answers that you even really acknowledge exactly what the Chovos Halevavos' proof actually is which is essentially a comparison between what we do accept - that man-made artifacts testify to the mind of their maker, and natural artifacts, where that is also the case - and even more so.

And I felt that by deferring to "academic rigorous philosophy" and listing suggested reading, you're not really directly addressing at all my arguments. I apologise though if that was merely because I was not sufficiently clear.

@loewian "is not a normal defnition [sic]" I disagree.

@loewian "deferring to 'academic rigorous philosophy'" I did not defer. I marshaled support for my disagreement.

Frankly I think switching my definition of proof for the third class would be even more confusing.