{ 1 } - He has proved the existence of God, freedom, and immortality of the soul with the principle of causality.
{ 2 } - It is possible that virtue might be rewarded with happiness without the supposition of a wise and good Creator.
{ 3 } - Although God and the free, immortal soul are not given as objects of intellectual intuition, theoretical reason is compelled to admit that there are such objects.
{ 4 } - It is possible to accept the existence of the moral and deny the existence of God whereas it is not possible to accept the existence of the moral law and deny freedom.
{ 5 } - The postulates of God, freedom, and immortality increase our knowledge, but only from a practical point of view.
{ 6 } - Freedom is so united with moral law and duty that we cannot admit them and deny freedom.
{ 7 } - We cannot say that the conception of the perfect good implies the existence of God in the same way that obligation implies freedom.
{ 8 } - Given the postulates, theoretical reason can now use the categories of the understanding to think these supersensible realities with meaning.

Kant does not hold this, since he thinks that the principle of causality is a principle of pure theoretical reason that is applicable only to sense experience. But isn't he using the principle of sufficient reason to arrive at the postulates, and isn't the principle of causality a version of the principle of sufficient reason?