The crux of the argument is in 3.3...he's basically parroting the worst parts of Kant. The argument was destroyed by Hume before it was even put forth, ridicule

The crux of the argument is in 3.3...he's basically parroting the worst parts of Kant. The argument was destroyed by Hume before it was even put forth, ridiculed by Nietzsche (BGE 11, a very entertaining passage), and then had all its foundations removed by Quine in Two Dogmas. This is not philosophy, it's badly-cloaked theology. Like cavemen attributing the thunder to a god, except even worse because now we have the tools and the knowledge to know there is no such thing.