Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn - The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 23 lyrics

SECTION V. Of the Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God It was by no means a natural course of proceeding, but, on the contrary An invention entirely due to the subtlety of the schools, to attempt To draw from a mere idea a proof of the existence of an object Corresponding to it. Such a course would never have been pursued Were it not for that need of reason which requires it to suppose the Existence of a necessary being as a basis for the empirical regress, and That, as this necessity must be unconditioned and a priori, reason is Bound to discover a conception which shall satisfy, if possible, this Requirement, and enable us to attain to the a priori cognition of such A being. This conception was thought to be found in the idea of an ens Realissimum, and thus this idea was employed for the attainment of a Better defined knowledge of a necessary being, of the existence of Which we were convinced, or persuaded, on other grounds. Thus reason was Seduced from her natural courage; and, instead of concluding with the Conception of an ens realissimum, an attempt was made to begin with it For the purpose of inferring from it that idea of a necessary existence Which it was in fact called in to complete. Thus arose that unfortunate Ontological argument, which neither satisfies the healthy common sense Of humanity, nor sustains the scientific examination of the philosopher The cosmological proof, which we are about to examine, retains the Connection between absolute necessity and the highest reality; but Instead of reasoning from this highest reality to a necessary existence Like the preceding argument, it concludes from the given unconditioned Necessity of some being its unlimited reality. The track it pursues Whether rational or sophistical, is at least natural, and not only goes Far to persuade the common understanding, but shows itself deserving of Respect from the speculative intellect; while it contains, at the Same time, the outlines of all the arguments employed in natural Theology--arguments which always have been, and still will be, in Use and authority. These, however adorned, and hid under whatever Embellishments of rhetoric and sentiment, are at bottom identical With the arguments we are at present to discuss. This proof, termed by Leibnitz the argumentum a contingentia mundi, I shall now lay before the Reader, and subject to a strict examination It is framed in the following manner: If something exists, an Absolutely necessary being must likewise exist. Now I, at least, exist Consequently, there exists an absolutely necessary being. The minor Contains an experience, the major reasons from a general experience to The existence of a necessary being.* Thus this argument really begins at Experience, and is not completely a priori, or ontological. The Object of all possible experience being the world, it is called the Cosmological proof. It contains no reference to any peculiar property Of sensuous objects, by which this world of sense might be distinguished From other possible worlds; and in this respect it differs from the Physico-theological proof, which is based upon the consideration of the Peculiar constitution of our sensuous world The proof proceeds thus: A necessary being can be determined only in one Way, that is, it can be determined by only one of all possible opposed Predicates; consequently, it must be completely determined in and by its Conception. But there is only a single conception of a thing possible Which completely determines the thing a priori: that is, the conception Of the ens realissimum. It follows that the conception of the ens Realissimum is the only conception by and in which we can cogitate a Necessary being. Consequently, a Supreme Being necessarily exists In this cosmological argument are a**embled so many sophistical Propositions that speculative reason seems to have exerted in it all Her dialectical sk** to produce a transcendental illusion of the most Extreme character. We shall postpone an investigation of this argument For the present, and confine ourselves to exposing the stratagem by Which it imposes upon us an old argument in a new dress, and appeals To the agreement of two witnesses, the one with the credentials of pure Reason, and the other with those of empiricism; while, in fact, it is Only the former who has changed his dress and voice, for the purpose Of pa**ing himself off for an additional witness. That it may possess A secure foundation, it bases its conclusions upon experience, and thus Appears to be completely distinct from the ontological argument, which Places its confidence entirely in pure a priori conceptions. But this Experience merely aids reason in making one step--to the existence of a Necessary being. What the properties of this being are cannot be learned From experience; and therefore reason abandons it altogether, and Pursues its inquiries in the sphere of pure conception, for the purpose Of discovering what the properties of an absolutely necessary being Ought to be, that is, what among all possible things contain the Conditions (requisita) of absolute necessity. Reason believes that It has discovered these requisites in the conception of an ens Realissimum--and in it alone, and hence concludes: The ens realissimum Is an absolutely necessary being. But it is evident that reason has Here presupposed that the conception of an ens realissimum is perfectly Adequate to the conception of a being of absolute necessity, that is That we may infer the existence of the latter from that of the former--a Proposition which formed the basis of the ontological argument, and Which is now employed in the support of the cosmological argument Contrary to the wish and professions of its inventors. For the existence Of an absolutely necessary being is given in conceptions alone. But if I say: "The conception of the ens realissimum is a conception of this Kind, and in fact the only conception which is adequate to our idea of a Necessary being," I am obliged to admit, that the latter may be inferred From the former. Thus it is properly the ontological argument which Figures in the cosmological, and constitutes the whole strength of the Latter; while the spurious basis of experience has been of no further Use than to conduct us to the conception of absolute necessity, being Utterly insufficient to demonstrate the presence of this attribute in Any determinate existence or thing. For when we propose to ourselves An aim of this character, we must abandon the sphere of experience, and Rise to that of pure conceptions, which we examine with the purpose of Discovering whether any one contains the conditions of the possibility Of an absolutely necessary being. But if the possibility of such a being Is thus demonstrated, its existence is also proved; for we may then Assert that, of all possible beings there is one which possesses The attribute of necessity--in other words, this being possesses an Absolutely necessary existence All illusions in an argument are more easily detected when they are Presented in the formal manner employed by the schools, which we now Proceed to do If the proposition: "Every absolutely necessary being is likewise an ens Realissimum," is correct (and it is this which constitutes the nervus Probandi of the cosmological argument), it must, like all affirmative Judgements, be capable of conversion--the conversio per accidens, at Least. It follows, then, that some entia realissima are absolutely Necessary beings. But no ens realissimum is in any respect different From another, and what is valid of some is valid of all. In this present Case, therefore, I may employ simple conversion, and say: "Every ens Realissimum is a necessary being." But as this proposition is determined A priori by the conceptions contained in it, the mere conception of An ens realissimum must possess the additional attribute of absolute Necessity. But this is exactly what was maintained in the ontological Argument, and not recognized by the cosmological, although it formed the Real ground of its disguised and illusory reasoning Thus the second mode employed by speculative reason of demonstrating the Existence of a Supreme Being, is not only, like the first, illusory And inadequate, but possesses the additional blemish of an ignoratio Elenchi--professing to conduct us by a new road to the desired goal, but Bringing us back, after a short circuit, to the old path which we had Deserted at its call I mentioned above that this cosmological argument contains a perfect Nest of dialectical a**umptions, which transcendental criticism does not Find it difficult to expose and to dissipate. I shall merely enumerate These, leaving it to the reader, who must by this time be well practised In such matters, to investigate the fallacies residing therein The following fallacies, for example, are discoverable in this mode of Proof: 1. The transcendental principle: "Everything that is contingent Must have a cause"--a principle without significance, except in the Sensuous world. For the purely intellectual conception of the contingent Cannot produce any synthetical proposition, like that of causality Which is itself without significance or distinguishing characteristic Except in the phenomenal world. But in the present case it is employed To help us beyond the limits of its sphere. 2. "From the impossibility Of an infinite ascending series of causes in the world of sense a first Cause is inferred"; a conclusion which the principles of the employment Of reason do not justify even in the sphere of experience, and still Less when an attempt is made to pa** the limits of this sphere. 3 Reason allows itself to be satisfied upon insufficient grounds, with Regard to the completion of this series. It removes all conditions (without which, however, no conception of Necessity can take place); And, as after this it is beyond our power to form any other conceptions It accepts this as a completion of the conception it wishes to form of The series. 4. The logical possibility of a conception of the total Of reality (the criterion of this possibility being the absence of Contradiction) is confounded with the transcendental, which requires a Principle of the practicability of such a synthesis--a principle which Again refers us to the world of experience. And so on The aim of the cosmological argument is to avoid the necessity Of proving the existence of a necessary being priori from mere Conceptions--a proof which must be ontological, and of which we feel Ourselves quite incapable. With this purpose, we reason from an Actual existence--an experience in general, to an absolutely necessary Condition of that existence. It is in this case unnecessary to Demonstrate its possibility. For after having proved that it exists, the Question regarding its possibility is superfluous. Now, when we wish to Define more strictly the nature of this necessary being, we do not look Out for some being the conception of which would enable us to comprehend The necessity of its being--for if we could do this, an empirical Presupposition would be unnecessary; no, we try to discover merely the Negative condition (conditio sine qua non), without which a being would Not be absolutely necessary. Now this would be perfectly admissible in Every sort of reasoning, from a consequence to its principle; but in The present case it unfortunately happens that the condition of absolute Necessity can be discovered in but a single being, the conception of Which must consequently contain all that is requisite for demonstrating The presence of absolute necessity, and thus entitle me to infer this Absolute necessity a priori. That is, it must be possible to reason Conversely, and say: The thing, to which the conception of the highest Reality belongs, is absolutely necessary. But if I cannot reason Thus--and I cannot, unless I believe in the sufficiency of the Ontological argument--I find insurmountable obstacles in my new path And am really no farther than the point from which I set out. The Conception of a Supreme Being satisfies all questions a priori regarding The internal determinations of a thing, and is for this reason an ideal Without equal or parallel, the general conception of it indicating it As at the same time an ens individuum among all possible things. But the Conception does not satisfy the question regarding its existence--which Was the purpose of all our inquiries; and, although the existence of a Necessary being were admitted, we should find it impossible to answer The question: What of all things in the world must be regarded as such? It is certainly allowable to admit the existence of an all-sufficient Being--a cause of all possible effects--for the purpose of enabling Reason to introduce unity into its mode and grounds of explanation with Regard to phenomena. But to a**ert that such a being necessarily exists Is no longer the modest enunciation of an admissible hypothesis, but The boldest declaration of an apodeictic certainty; for the cognition of That which is absolutely necessary must itself possess that character The aim of the transcendental ideal formed by the mind is either to Discover a conception which shall harmonize with the idea of absolute Necessity, or a conception which shall contain that idea. If the one Is possible, so is the other; for reason recognizes that alone as Absolutely necessary which is necessary from its conception. But both Attempts are equally beyond our power--we find it impossible to satisfy The understanding upon this point, and as impossible to induce it to Remain at rest in relation to this incapacity Unconditioned necessity, which, as the ultimate support and stay of All existing things, is an indispensable requirement of the mind, is an Abyss on the verge of which human reason trembles in dismay. Even the Idea of eternity, terrible and sublime as it is, as depicted by Haller Does not produce upon the mental vision such a feeling of awe and Terror; for, although it measures the duration of things, it does not Support them. We cannot bear, nor can we rid ourselves of the Thought that a being, which we regard as the greatest of all possible Existences, should say to himself: I am from eternity to eternity; Beside me there is nothing, except that which exists by my will; whence Then am I? Here all sinks away from under us; and the greatest, as the Smallest, perfection, hovers without stay or footing in presence of the Speculative reason, which finds it as easy to part with the one as with The other Many physical powers, which evidence their existence by their effects Are perfectly inscrutable in their nature; they elude all our powers Of observation. The transcendental object which forms the basis of Phenomena, and, in connection with it, the reason why our sensibility Possesses this rather than that particular kind of conditions, are and Must ever remain hidden from our mental vision; the fact is there, the Reason of the fact we cannot see. But an ideal of pure reason cannot Be termed mysterious or inscrutable, because the only credential of Its reality is the need of it felt by reason, for the purpose of giving Completeness to the world of synthetical unity. An ideal is not even Given as a cogitable object, and therefore cannot be inscrutable; on The contrary, it must, as a mere idea, be based on the constitution of Reason itself, and on this account must be capable of explanation and Solution. For the very essence of reason consists in its ability to Give an account, of all our conceptions, opinions, and a**ertions--upon Objective, or, when they happen to be illusory and fallacious, upon Subjective grounds Detection and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Arguments for the Existence of a Necessary Being Both of the above arguments are transcendental; in other words, they do Not proceed upon empirical principles. For, although the cosmological Argument professed to lay a basis of experience for its edifice Of reasoning, it did not ground its procedure upon the peculiar Constitution of experience, but upon pure principles of reason--in Relation to an existence given by empirical consciousness; utterly Abandoning its guidance, however, for the purpose of supporting its Assertions entirely upon pure conceptions. Now what is the cause In these transcendental arguments, of the dialectical, but natural Illusion, which connects the conceptions of necessity and supreme Reality, and hypostatizes that which cannot be anything but an idea? What is the cause of this unavoidable step on the part of reason, of Admitting that some one among all existing things must be necessary While it falls back from the a**ertion of the existence of such a being As from an abyss? And how does reason proceed to explain this anomaly To itself, and from the wavering condition of a timid and reluctant Approbation--always again withdrawn--arrive at a calm and settled Insight into its cause? It is something very remarkable that, on the supposition that something Exists, I cannot avoid the inference that something exists necessarily Upon this perfectly natural--but not on that account reliable--inference Does the cosmological argument rest. But, let me form any conception Whatever of a thing, I find that I cannot cogitate the existence of The thing as absolutely necessary, and that nothing prevents me--be the Thing or being what it may--from cogitating its non-existence. I may Thus be obliged to admit that all existing things have a necessary Basis, while I cannot cogitate any single or individual thing as Necessary. In other words, I can never complete the regress through the Conditions of existence, without admitting the existence of a necessary Being; but, on the other hand, I cannot make a commencement from this Being If I must cogitate something as existing necessarily as the basis of Existing things, and yet am not permitted to cogitate any individual Thing as in itself necessary, the inevitable inference is that necessity And contingency are not properties of things themselves--otherwise an Internal contradiction would result; that consequently neither of These principles are objective, but merely subjective principles Of reason--the one requiring us to seek for a necessary ground For everything that exists, that is, to be satisfied with no other Explanation than that which is complete a priori, the other forbidding Us ever to hope for the attainment of this completeness, that is, to Regard no member of the empirical world as unconditioned. In this Mode of viewing them, both principles, in their purely heuristic and Regulative character, and as concerning merely the formal interest of Reason, are quite consistent with each other. The one says: "You must Philosophize upon nature," as if there existed a necessary primal basis Of all existing things, solely for the purpose of introducing systematic Unity into your knowledge, by pursuing an idea of this character--a Foundation which is arbitrarily admitted to be ultimate; while the Other warns you to consider no individual determination, concerning The existence of things, as such an ultimate foundation, that is As absolutely necessary, but to keep the way always open for further Progress in the deduction, and to treat every determination as Determined by some other. But if all that we perceive must be regarded As conditionally necessary, it is impossible that anything which is Empirically given should be absolutely necessary It follows from this that you must accept the absolutely necessary As out of and beyond the world, inasmuch as it is useful only as a Principle of the highest possible unity in experience, and you cannot Discover any such necessary existence in the would, the second rule Requiring you to regard all empirical causes of unity as themselves Deduced The philosophers of antiquity regarded all the forms of nature as Contingent; while matter was considered by them, in accordance with the Judgement of the common reason of mankind, as primal and necessary But if they had regarded matter, not relatively--as the substratum of Phenomena, but absolutely and in itself--as an independent existence This idea of absolute necessity would have immediately disappeared. For There is nothing absolutely connecting reason with such an existence; On the contrary, it can annihilate it in thought, always and without Self-contradiction. But in thought alone lay the idea of absolute Necessity. A regulative principle must, therefore, have been at The foundation of this opinion. In fact, extension and Impenetrability--which together constitute our conception of Matter--form the supreme empirical principle of the unity of phenomena And this principle, in so far as it is empirically unconditioned Possesses the property of a regulative principle. But, as every Determination of matter which constitutes what is real in it--and Consequently impenetrability--is an effect, which must have a cause, and Is for this reason always derived, the notion of matter cannot harmonize With the idea of a necessary being, in its character of the principle of All derived unity. For every one of its real properties, being derived Must be only conditionally necessary, and can therefore be annihilated In thought; and thus the whole existence of matter can be so annihilated Or suppressed. If this were not the case, we should have found in the World of phenomena the highest ground or condition of unity--which is Impossible, according to the second regulative principle. It follows That matter, and, in general, all that forms part of the world of sense Cannot be a necessary primal being, nor even a principle of empirical Unity, but that this being or principle must have its place a**igned Without the world. And, in this way, we can proceed in perfect Confidence to deduce the phenomena of the world and their existence from Other phenomena, just as if there existed no necessary being; and we Can at the same time, strive without ceasing towards the attainment of Completeness for our deduction, just as if such a being--the supreme Condition of all existences--were presupposed by the mind These remarks will have made it evident to the reader that the ideal of The Supreme Being, far from being an enouncement of the existence of a Being in itself necessary, is nothing more than a regulative principle Of reason, requiring us to regard all connection existing between Phenomena as if it had its origin from an all-sufficient necessary Cause, and basing upon this the rule of a systematic and necessary unity In the explanation of phenomena. We cannot, at the same time, avoid Regarding, by a transcendental subreptio, this formal principle as Constitutive, and hypostatizing this unity. Precisely similar is the Case with our notion of space. Space is the primal condition of all Forms, which are properly just so many different limitations of it; and Thus, although it is merely a principle of sensibility, we cannot help Regarding it as an absolutely necessary and self-subsistent thing--as An object given a priori in itself. In the same way, it is quite natural That, as the systematic unity of nature cannot be established as a Principle for the empirical employment of reason, unless it is based Upon the idea of an ens realissimum, as the supreme cause, we should Regard this idea as a real object, and this object, in its character Of supreme condition, as absolutely necessary, and that in this way a Regulative should be transformed into a constitutive principle. This Interchange becomes evident when I regard this supreme being, which Relatively to the world, was absolutely (unconditionally) necessary As a thing per se. In this case, I find it impossible to represent this Necessity in or by any conception, and it exists merely in my own mind As the formal condition of thought, but not as a material and hypostatic Condition of existence SECTION VI. Of the Impossibility of a Physico-Theological Proof If, then, neither a pure conception nor the general experience of an Existing being can provide a sufficient basis for the proof of the Existence of the Deity, we can make the attempt by the only other Mode--that of grounding our argument upon a determinate experience of The phenomena of the present world, their constitution and disposition And discover whether we can thus attain to a sound conviction of The existence of a Supreme Being. This argument we shall term the Physico-theological argument. If it is shown to be insufficient Speculative reason cannot present us with any satisfactory proof of the Existence of a being corresponding to our transcendental idea It is evident from the remarks that have been made in the preceding Sections, that an answer to this question will be far from being Difficult or unconvincing. For how can any experience be adequate With an idea? The very essence of an idea consists in the fact that no Experience can ever be discovered congruent or adequate with it. The Transcendental idea of a necessary and all-sufficient being is so Immeasurably great, so high above all that is empirical, which is always Conditioned, that we hope in vain to find materials in the sphere of Experience sufficiently ample for our conception, and in vain seek the Unconditioned among things that are conditioned, while examples, nay Even guidance is denied us by the laws of empirical synthesis If the Supreme Being forms a link in the chain of empirical conditions It must be a member of the empirical series, and, like the lower members Which it precedes, have its origin in some higher member of the series If, on the other hand, we disengage it from the chain, and cogitate it As an intelligible being, apart from the series of natural causes--how Shall reason bridge the abyss that separates the latter from the former? All laws respecting the regress from effects to causes, all synthetical Additions to our knowledge relate solely to possible experience and The objects of the sensuous world, and, apart from them, are without Significance The world around us opens before our view so magnificent a spectacle of Order, variety, beauty, and conformity to ends, that whether we pursue Our observations into the infinity of space in the one direction, or Into its illimitable divisions in the other, whether we regard the world In its greatest or its least manifestations--even after we have attained To the highest summit of knowledge which our weak minds can reach, we Find that language in the presence of wonders so inconceivable has lost Its force, and number its power to reckon, nay, even thought fails to Conceive adequately, and our conception of the whole dissolves into an Astonishment without power of expression--all the more eloquent that it Is dumb. Everywhere around us we observe a chain of causes and effects Of means and ends, of d**h and birth; and, as nothing has entered Of itself into the condition in which we find it, we are constantly Referred to some other thing, which itself suggests the same inquiry Regarding its cause, and thus the universe must sink into the abyss Of nothingness, unless we admit that, besides this infinite chain Of contingencies, there exists something that is primal and Self-subsistent--something which, as the cause of this phenomenal world Secures its continuance and preservation This highest cause--what magnitude shall we attribute to it? Of the Content of the world we are ignorant; still less can we estimate its Magnitude by comparison with the sphere of the possible. But this Supreme cause being a necessity of the human mind, what is there to Prevent us from attributing to it such a degree of perfection as to Place it above the sphere of all that is possible? This we can easily Do, although only by the aid of the faint outline of an abstract Conception, by representing this being to ourselves as containing In itself, as an individual substance, all possible perfection--a Conception which satisfies that requirement of reason which demands Parsimony in principles, which is free from self-contradiction, which Even contributes to the extension of the employment of reason in Experience, by means of the guidance afforded by this idea to order and System, and which in no respect conflicts with any law of experience This argument always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the Oldest, the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason Of humanity. It animates the study of nature, as it itself derives its Existence and draws ever new strength from that source. It introduces Aims and ends into a sphere in which our observation could not of itself Have discovered them, and extends our knowledge of nature, by directing Our attention to a unity, the principle of which lies beyond nature This knowledge of nature again reacts upon this idea--its cause; and Thus our belief in a divine author of the universe rises to the power of An irresistible conviction For these reasons it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to rob this Argument of the authority it has always enjoyed. The mind, unceasingly Elevated by these considerations, which, although empirical, are so Remarkably powerful, and continually adding to their force, will Not suffer itself to be depressed by the doubts suggested by subtle Speculation; it tears itself out of this state of uncertainty, the Moment it casts a look upon the wondrous forms of nature and the majesty Of the universe, and rises from height to height, from condition to Condition, till it has elevated itself to the supreme and unconditioned Author of all But although we have nothing to object to the reasonableness and utility Of this procedure, but have rather to commend and encourage it We cannot approve of the claims which this argument advances to Demonstrative certainty and to a reception upon its own merits, apart From favour or support by other arguments. Nor can it injure the cause Of morality to endeavour to lower the tone of the arrogant sophist, and To teach him that modesty and moderation which are the properties of a Belief that brings calm and content into the mind, without Prescribing to it an unworthy subjection. I maintain, then, that the Physico-theological argument is insufficient of itself to prove The existence of a Supreme Being, that it must entrust this to the Ontological argument--to which it serves merely as an introduction, and That, consequently, this argument contains the only possible ground of Proof (possessed by speculative reason) for the existence of this being The chief momenta in the physico-theological argument are as follow: 1. We observe in the world manifest signs of an arrangement full of Purpose, executed with great wisdom, and argument in whole of a Content indescribably various, and of an extent without limits. 2. This Arrangement of means and ends is entirely foreign to the things existing In the world--it belongs to them merely as a contingent attribute; In other words, the nature of different things could not of itself Whatever means were employed, harmoniously tend towards certain Purposes, were they not chosen and directed for these purposes by a Rational and disposing principle, in accordance with certain fundamental Ideas. 3. There exists, therefore, a sublime and wise cause (or Several), which is not merely a blind, all-powerful nature, producing The beings and events which fill the world in unconscious fecundity, but A free and intelligent cause of the world. 4. The unity of this cause May be inferred from the unity of the reciprocal relation existing Between the parts of the world, as portions of an artistic edifice--an Inference which all our observation favours, and all principles of an*logy support In the above argument, it is inferred from the an*logy of certain Products of nature with those of human art, when it compels Nature to Bend herself to its purposes, as in the case of a house, a ship, or A watch, that the same kind of causality--namely, understanding And will--resides in nature. It is also declared that the internal Possibility of this freely-acting nature (which is the source of all Art, and perhaps also of human reason) is derivable from another and Superhuman art--a conclusion which would perhaps be found incapable of Standing the test of subtle transcendental criticism. But to neither of These opinions shall we at present object. We shall only remark that It must be confessed that, if we are to discuss the subject of cause At all, we cannot proceed more securely than with the guidance of the an*logy subsisting between nature and such products of design--these Being the only products whose causes and modes of organization are Completely known to us. Reason would be unable to satisfy her own Requirements, if she pa**ed from a causality which she does know, to Obscure and indemonstrable principles of explanation which she does not Know According to the physico-theological argument, the connection and Harmony existing in the world evidence the contingency of the form Merely, but not of the matter, that is, of the substance of the world To establish the truth of the latter opinion, it would be necessary to Prove that all things would be in themselves incapable of this harmony And order, unless they were, even as regards their substance, the Product of a supreme wisdom. But this would require very different Grounds of proof from those presented by the an*logy with human art This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an Architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of The material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to Whom all things are subject. Thus this argument is utterly insufficient For the task before us--a demonstration of the existence of an All-sufficient being. If we wish to prove the contingency of matter We must have recourse to a transcendental argument, which the Physico-theological was constructed expressly to avoid We infer, from the order and design visible in the universe, as a Disposition of a thoroughly contingent character, the existence of a Cause proportionate thereto. The conception of this cause must contain Certain determinate qualities, and it must therefore be regarded as the Conception of a being which possesses all power, wisdom, and so on, in One word, all perfection--the conception, that is, of an all-sufficient Being. For the predicates of very great, astonishing, or immeasurable Power and excellence, give us no determinate conception of the thing Nor do they inform us what the thing may be in itself. They merely Indicate the relation existing between the magnitude of the object and The observer, who compares it with himself and with his own power of Comprehension, and are mere expressions of praise and reverence By which the object is either magnified, or the observing subject Depreciated in relation to the object. Where we have to do with the Magnitude (of the perfection) of a thing, we can discover no determinate Conception, except that which comprehends all possible perfection or Completeness, and it is only the total (omnitudo) of reality which is Completely determined in and through its conception alone Now it cannot be expected that any one will be bold enough to declare That he has a perfect insight into the relation which the magnitude Of the world he contemplates bears (in its extent as well as in its Content) to omnipotence, into that of the order and design in the World to the highest wisdom, and that of the unity of the world to The absolute unity of a Supreme Being. Physico-theology is therefore Incapable of presenting a determinate conception of a supreme cause of The world, and is therefore insufficient as a principle of theology--a Theology which is itself to be the basis of religion The attainment of absolute totality is completely impossible on the Path of empiricism. And yet this is the path pursued in the Physico-theological argument. What means shall we employ to bridge the Abyss? After elevating ourselves to admiration of the magnitude of the power Wisdom, and other attributes of the author of the world, and finding we Can advance no further, we leave the argument on empirical grounds And proceed to infer the contingency of the world from the order and Conformity to aims that are observable in it. From this contingency we Infer, by the help of transcendental conceptions alone, the existence of Something absolutely necessary; and, still advancing, proceed from The conception of the absolute necessity of the first cause to the Completely determined or determining conception thereof--the conception Of an all-embracing reality. Thus the physico-theological, failing In its undertaking, recurs in its embarra**ment to the cosmological Argument; and, as this is merely the ontological argument in disguise It executes its design solely by the aid of pure reason, although it at First professed to have no connection with this faculty and to base its Entire procedure upon experience alone The physico-theologians have therefore no reason to regard with such Contempt the transcendental mode of argument, and to look down upon It, with the conceit of clear-sighted observers of nature, as the Brain-cobweb of obscure speculatists. For, if they reflect upon and Examine their own arguments, they will find that, after following for Some time the path of nature and experience, and discovering themselves No nearer their object, they suddenly leave this path and pa** into the Region of pure possibility, where they hope to reach upon the wings of Ideas what had eluded all their empirical investigations. Gaining, as They think, a firm footing after this immense leap, they extend their Determinate conception--into the possession of which they have come They know not how--over the whole sphere of creation, and explain their Ideal, which is entirely a product of pure reason, by illustrations Drawn from experience--though in a degree miserably unworthy of the Grandeur of the object, while they refuse to acknowledge that they have Arrived at this cognition or hypothesis by a very different road from That of experience Thus the physico-theological is based upon the cosmological, and this Upon the ontological proof of the existence of a Supreme Being; and as Besides these three there is no other path open to speculative reason The ontological proof, on the ground of pure conceptions of reason, is The only possible one, if any proof of a proposition so far transcending The empirical exercise of the understanding is possible at all