Daniel Koren, not only nowadays but in the past as well you weren’t familiar with Kant’s views, all the more so with his writings.

“Happy to Help”…
I wrote “at present,” and I meant that maybe in the future (isn’t that pretty clear?) I’ll delve into his thought more deeply…

Rabbi Michi, thank you very much.

And by the way, what I meant was: “did he address them”—that is, did they persuade him? (Beyond the “definition”; I too can define the “ontological proof,” and it doesn’t persuade me for my own reasons.)

That is, did he dispute the premises of the cosmological or physico-theological syllogism?

And of course, just to be clear, by the phrase “addressed them” I meant whether he disagreed with the syllogism of either one of them.
The fact that the terminology comes from him is one thing. Agreeing that the arguments are valid is something else.

When Kant talked about the thing-in-itself, all he was really talking about (without knowing it) was the neurological processes in the brain. That’s what causes us to experience a worldview.
And since we’re dealing with processes, then it’s not a “thing-in-itself.”
In short, related or not related, Kant is a blabberer who loved churning out lots of verbiage.
And ever since, all kinds of mumbling sects have admired him.

Daniel, he did not agree with the arguments. In his book there is criticism of them. But validity is not the relevant criterion, since validity is the necessary derivation of a conclusion from premises. In a philosophical argument there is no need for necessity, and besides, you can always add premises to make it come out necessary. Therefore the important question is whether the premises are reasonable.