I heard the podcast; kind of unfair. After they played the Rabbi, they brought in an expert atheist who casually said, “Even Rabbi Michael Abraham thinks that specifically the religion he was born into is the true one…” and from there concluded that all believers’ proofs are just shooting the arrow and then drawing the target around it.
But Rabbi Michi has written several times that it could even be that the Christians had a true revelation, and the Muslims too, etc. (following Rabbi Kook)…
Maybe there will be a follow-up with a detailed response?

There won’t be. He didn’t hear me, and I didn’t hear him. I didn’t even know they were combining it with other speakers. There will be another part, because some of what I said still hasn’t been uploaded.

The fact that one cannot imagine or understand how an infinite regress is instantiated does not rule it out.
If you assume that is what exists, no contradiction is created.

I’m simply saying that the objection to the watch argument is itself unfounded, since Paley originally speaks specifically about a reproducing watch capable of creating more copies of itself (many people are not aware of this fact, that Paley is not speaking only about a regular metal watch). He goes on to argue that in such a case the inference to design is even stronger, since a watch capable of creating copies of itself is much more complex and sophisticated than an ordinary inanimate watch, and therefore we should all the more infer design. What do you think?

I don’t know what a reproducing watch is. It’s an example of something complex, and there is no importance to the question of how complex it is. Assuming there is something very complex, one assumes it did not come about on its own. That’s all.

Rabbi, it seems to me you express yourself more clearly orally than you do in writing.
And as long as you’re doing an oral discussion, why with some blowhard? (Don’t reply so he won’t read it.)
Also, the discussion jumped from question to question and kept bouncing around, and at one point he even backed off a bit. So it would be much better if you just did an orderly discussion, one question at a time, built step by step. It just sounded like a circus.
And still, despite all that, the points were sharpened very nicely in my humble opinion, but that’s within an almost impossible format.

By the way, I didn’t fully understand that philosopher: if he likes skeptical arguments so much, and especially David Hume’s, why does he rely on science? Did you ask him about that later on?

No

Isn’t it true that belief in God can דווקא serve as an explanation—or at least an excellent normative explanation—for scientific inquiry?
After all, according to his view that one cannot make analogies, or at the very least should minimize them as much as possible, there is no reason to conduct any scientific research at all.

It can be put a bit differently: half the conversation made him sound fairly pessimistic about the ability of reason to understand things that are remote from it, like the origin of the world. But science deals with exactly that, and there we didn’t hear him casting nearly as much doubt. And if scientists manage to build a theory that becomes accepted in research about some kind of primordial universe that caused this universe, it’s pretty clear he would accept it… but it sounds really puzzling that דווקא when it comes to God, he isn’t willing to hear that it’s possible.