The universe doesn’t owe us anything, but the fact is, we are capable of understanding the universe, at least in part.

As for Hume vs Kant on causality:

The key difference lies in how they view the nature and origin of causality. Hume argues that we can never directly observe causal connections - we only see one event following another repeatedly, and our minds create the idea of causation through habit and custom. When we say A causes B, we're really just expressing our psychological expectation that B will follow A, based on past experience.

Kant responds to this by arguing that causality isn't just a psychological habit, but rather a necessary feature of how our minds organize experience. For Kant, causality is one of the fundamental categories that our mind uses to make sense of the world - we couldn't have coherent experience at all without already assuming causal connections. While we can't observe causation directly (here he agrees with Hume), Kant thinks it's built into the very structure of human understanding rather than being merely derived from experience.

In other words, Hume sees causality as something we infer from repeated observations, while Kant sees it as something we must presuppose to have any observations at all.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​