Question

Hello Rabbi,
I finished the third discussion (the physicotheological proof) in the book “The First Existent,” and I saw that the fourth discussion speaks “about inferential and revelatory arguments.”
My question is whether the fourth discussion is necessary to complete the structure of the physicotheological argument as it was presented in the third discussion, or whether it is a different angle on the same topic?
Thank you!
(By the way, I’m very grateful to you for this book in general. I’m grateful that there are people like you.)