Kant himself said God is a matter of faith and is not knowable. But according to his discussion, how is the notion of God and the soul even comprehensible?

What Kant wants to say, is that although many of his predecessors said that God and the soul was necessary for moral and ethical convictions and religions convictions, and they provided a system of metaphysics to support these convictions, Kant says that if these metaphysical considerations are to have any basis, they must be based on the primitive moral convictions themselves.

Is it just an inescapable empirical fact that we have moral convitions, but for these convictions to have any validity or significance at all [right, wrong, pain, blame], there must be some form of choice, that for some of us, some of the time, we must be deviant. How are these possible on the one hand, in a world in which all matter are governed with Newtonian laws, but also for us to have free will, which he thinks is an inescapable consequence of the direct experience of moral categories, then there must be some sort of moral realm; how does he get close to this?

What he says about himself, theology, and religion, is that these are not problems of knowledge or faith. By making clear the distinction between the world as experienced and the world as in themselves, he is entitled to say that the world exists in the physicist\'s realm, but also bear in mind that that this is in the world of appearances, and there are also the realm of things-in-themselves, and this is where the conceptions of free-will, right and wrong. So free will and right and wrong exist in the realm of things-in-themselves, not in the world of experience.