Hello Rabbi, and thanks.
1. (a) So do you agree with Steinitz’s argument? I did not see in the notebooks a proof of God from the question: “Who enforces the laws at every moment? It is proven that there exists an entity that does this; let us call it God,” regardless of how special the laws are.
(b) According to this suggestion, even if the world is eternal in its current form (Aristotle), it is still proven that there exists an entity that governs the laws, and if the laws are special then it is also intelligent. Correct?
The idea is that there is no need even to use the principle of sufficient reason, only the principle of causality on a vertical axis (who operates the laws at each and every moment).
(c) This whole move relies on the fact that the laws are not embedded in matter. Because if they are embedded in it and are eternal, then it makes no sense to ask: what entity operates them? (And then only sufficient reason remains.) What is the justification for that?
(d) Why assume that God causes the law of gravity, if there is a graviton that causes it?

Thanks in advance.

There is no need for someone to operate the laws unless they are not entities. As I wrote, it seems that there are entities that operate them (such as the force of gravity that operates the law of gravitation), and those were created in the Big Bang, and that’s it. There is no necessity for ongoing divine involvement.
That also does not require that they be embedded in matter. They exist in the world.

1) But the Rabbi always argues that if the laws are entities, then they are God. (And if they are a description, then they describe God.) That implies that God does indeed operate the laws on an ongoing basis (since He is the entity called the laws of nature).
2) So how is the physico-theological proof formulated from the laws themselves? After all, there are eternal entities called the laws of nature, and they are not God, so why is God needed here (if the laws are not special)?
3) I did not understand whether the Rabbi agrees with Steinitz or not.

Even if such entities exist, either they are eternal or they are not. If not, then you need someone who created them. And if so, then it is one of two things: either they are God (and they are intelligent entities, because only an intelligent entity is a primary cause for something like that), and if not, then they require sufficient reason—and that is God.

Got it, thanks, just a few last questions:
1) If the laws were not special and coordinated, would the entity that operates them still have to be intelligent?
2) In the notebook the Rabbi argues that sufficient reason needs to be sought only for something special, not for everything. So if the laws were not special, and were eternal and non-intelligent, then seemingly there would be no need to assume that God exists, because there would be no need to seek sufficient reason for them.
(You wrote in the last reply that on the possibility that laws are eternal non-intelligent entities, only the question of sufficient reason remains regarding them.)

Correct. Simple and eternal laws perhaps do not require an explanation (cause and reason). At least, that is much weaker.

Nice.
One last question: why view the laws of nature as entities / descriptions of the action of external entities, rather than simply a useful fiction?
After all, if there is a coffee machine here that performs a certain action, no one would think that the laws according to which it works are entities, or even that they describe the action of entities external to the machine. It is simply the structure of the machine, and that’s all.
Likewise with the laws of physics: it is simply the structure of the universe or of matter, and the laws are a fiction.
Am I missing something in the analogy?

The coffee machine too works according to the laws of nature. But when you make a certain structure, you harness the laws of nature for the sake of a certain action. That is what is called technology. What you called the “structure” of the universe is precisely the laws.

1) If I understand what you mean, the coffee machine uses (for example) the physical fact that an electron repels an electron for its own purposes, so its laws rely on the laws of nature, but the laws of nature themselves need some basic thing to operate them, right?
2) Does your claim rely on stopping an infinite regress? If the graviton is found, would one still need to assume an entity that operates the laws?

1. Yes.
2. Yes. A graviton has no judgment and it is not its own cause. A particle does not create worlds.