Kant and Hull

Daniel Koren, not only today but also in the past, you were not familiar with Kant's views, let alone his writings.

‘Happy to help’..
I wrote ‘today’, and I meant that perhaps in the future (isn”t that clear?) I will delve deeper into his teachings..

To Rabbi Michi, thank you very much.

And by the way, I meant 'whether it touched'.. whether they convinced him. (Beyond the 'definition', I can also define 'ontological evidence', and it does not convince me for my own reasons).

Namely, whether he disputed the presuppositions of cosmological or physio-theological soligism.

And of course, it should be clear that I mean the term ‘touched them’, if he disagrees with the soligism of either of them.
That the terminology comes from him is one thing. And agreeing that the arguments are valid is another.

When Kant spoke about the thing to himself, he was simply speaking (without knowing it) about the neuronal processes in the brain. This is what makes us experience a worldview.
And because it is about processes, it is not a “thing to itself”.
In short, with or without context, Kant is a chatterbox who liked to chatter a lot.
And since then, these various sects of mumblers have admired him.

Daniel, he did not agree with the arguments. His book criticizes them. But validity is not the relevant criterion, since validity is the necessary consequence of a conclusion from premises. In a philosophical argument, there is no necessity, and on the contrary, one can always add premises to make it necessary. Therefore, the important question is whether the premises are reasonable.