Kant and the Evidence from Morality

Hello Rabbi!
I happened to browse through the first book of the trilogy, most of which I already know from the notebooks, and I saw that you are trying to argue there that Kantian morality is based on God.
Although I may agree with your claim that morality must be based on the existence of God, it should be noted that this is not Kant’s claim.
Kantian morality, and in fact Kant’s entire system, cannot tolerate tronomia, and therefore Kant takes care to remove it from the realm of morality in a decisive and explicit manner in many places (see especially the Analytics of the Critique of Practical Reason), and it is not for nothing that one cannot find a Kant scholar who would agree with your assertion that Kant posits God as the basis for morality.
I am afraid that your mistake with Kant stems from a failure to distinguish between two different levels of Kantian morality.
The first level is the level discussed in the Premise of the Metaphysics of Virtues, and in the Analytic of the First Critique, and it speaks of the autonomous morality that constitutes each private subject, and of his obligation to obey the categorical imperative.
The second level, which is discussed extensively mainly in Religion Within the Limits of Reason, speaks of an additional duty that man has, which is to establish a moral world, including society (“the approximation of the highest good on earth”). For this level, Kant refines the concept of God as one who enables my moral efforts and those of society to yield results in the real world and not be blocked by the indifferent empirical reality.
The sentence you cited as apparent proof of your words about religion within the limits of reason does not mean, as you presented, that God is the moral legislator for the individual, but rather that He is the legislator for a moral society , meaning that He enables the existence of a society that will realize morality on earth.
If so, this sentence refers to the second stage of morality and not the first stage that the rabbi discusses in the book, and into which Kant, God forbid, would introduce a theronomic factor like God. According to Kant, a moral act is good not because God commanded it, but because autonomous reason established it.
It should also be noted that the concept of God, which Kant proves by stating that human society must have the ability (“obligation presupposes ability”) to shape reality and make it moral, is an almost completely empty concept, and all the “theological” additions that the believer adds to it, such as “moral legislator,” “the greatest perfection,” are, in Kant’s opinion, purely subjective (and I am allowed to think of this empty concept objectively only within the framework of “the primacy of practical reason over theoretical reason”).
In light of all this, it seems to me clear that salvation and proof of the existence of God will not come to us from Kant. Even if it is very possible that you are right and that morality must be based on God, it is a bit of a shame to impose your own opinion on Kant, and to present the readers of the book with a false representation of Kant’s opinion.