experience and the peculiar constitution of the world of sense； and
rise； according to the laws of causality； from it to the highest cause
existing apart from the world… or from a purely indeterminate
experience； that is； some empirical existence… or abstraction is
made of all experience； and the existence of a supreme cause is
concluded from a priori conceptions alone。 The first is the
physicotheological argument； the second the cosmological； the third
the ontological。 More there are not； and more there cannot be。
I shall show it is as unsuccessful on the one path… the empirical…
as on the other… the transcendental… and that it stretches its wings
in vain； to soar beyond the world of sense by the mere might of
speculative thought。 As regards the order in which we must discuss
those arguments； it will be exactly the reverse of that in which
reason； in the progress of its development； attains to them… the order
in which they are placed above。 For it will be made manifest to the
reader that； although experience presents the occasion and the
starting…point； it is the transcendental idea of reason which guides
it in its pilgrimage and is the goal of all its struggles。 I shall
therefore begin with an examination of the transcendental argument；
and afterwards inquire what additional strength has accrued to this
mode of proof from the addition of the empirical element。
SECTION IV。 Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of
the Existence of God。
It is evident from what has been said that the conception of an
absolutely necessary being is a mere idea； the objective reality of
which is far from being established by the mere fact that it is a need
of reason。 On the contrary； this idea serves merely to indicate a
certain unattainable perfection； and rather limits the operations
than； by the presentation of new objects； extends the sphere of the
understanding。 But a strange anomaly meets us at the very threshold；
for the inference from a given existence in general to an absolutely
necessary existence seems to be correct and unavoidable； while the
conditions of the understanding refuse to aid us in forming any
conception of such a being。
Philosophers have always talked of an absolutely necessary being；
and have nevertheless declined to take the trouble of conceiving
whether… and how… a being of this nature is even cogitable； not to
mention that its existence is actually demonstrable。 A verbal
definition of the conception is certainly easy enough： it is something
the non…existence of which is impossible。 But does this definition
throw any light upon the conditions which render it impossible to
cogitate the non…existence of a thing… conditions which we wish to
ascertain； that we may discover whether we think anything in the
conception of such a being or not？ For the mere fact that I throw
away； by means of the word unconditioned； all the conditions which the
understanding habitually requires in order to regard anything as
necessary； is very far from making clear whether by means of the
conception of the unconditionally necessary I think of something； or
really of nothing at all。
Nay； more； this chance…conception； now bee so current； many
have endeavoured to explain by examples which seemed to render any
inquiries regarding its intelligibility quite needless。 Every
geometrical proposition… a triangle has three angles… it was said；
is absolutely necessary； and thus people talked of an object which lay
out of the sphere of our understanding as if it were perfectly plain
what the conception of such a being meant。
All the examples adduced have been drawn； without exception； from
judgements； and not from things。 But the unconditioned necessity of
a judgement does not form the absolute necessity of a thing。 On the
contrary； the absolute necessity of a judgement is only a
conditioned necessity of a thing； or of the predicate in a
judgement。 The proposition above…mentioned does not enounce that three
angles necessarily exist； but； upon condition that a triangle
exists； three angles must necessarily exist… in it。 And thus this
logical necessity has been the source of the greatest delusions。
Having formed an a priori conception of a thing； the content of
which was made to embrace existence； we believed ourselves safe in
concluding that； because existence belongs necessarily to the object
of the conception （that is； under the condition of my positing this
thing as given）； the existence of the thing is also posited
necessarily； and that it is therefore absolutely necessary… merely
because its existence has been cogitated in the conception。
If； in an identical judgement； I annihilate the predicate in
thought； and retain the subject； a contradiction is the result； and
hence I say； the former belongs necessarily to the latter。 But if I
suppress both subject and predicate in thought； no contradiction
arises； for there is nothing at all； and therefore no means of forming
a contradiction。 To suppose the existence of a triangle and not that
of its three angles； is self…contradictory； but to suppose the
non…existence of both triangle and angles is perfectly admissible。 And
so is it with the conception of an absolutely necessary being。
Annihilate its existence in thought； and you annihilate the thing
itself with all its predicates； how then can there be any room for
contradiction？ Externally； there is nothing to give rise to a
contradiction； for a thing cannot be necessary externally； nor
internally； for； by the annihilation or suppression of the thing
itself； its internal properties are also annihilated。 God is
omnipotent… that is a necessary judgement。 His omnipotence cannot be
denied； if the existence of a Deity is posited… the existence； that
is； of an infinite being； the two conceptions being identical。 But
when you say； God does not exist； neither omnipotence nor any other
predicate is affirmed； they must all disappear with the subject； and
in this judgement there cannot exist the least self…contradiction。
You have thus seen that when the predicate of a judgement is
annihilated in thought along with the subject； no internal
contradiction can arise； be the predicate what it may。 There is no
possibility of evading the conclusion… you find yourselves pelled
to declare： There are certain subjects which cannot be annihilated
in thought。 But this is nothing more than saying： There exist subjects
which are absolutely necessary… the very hypothesis which you are
called upon to establish。 For I find myself unable to form the
slightest conception of a thing which when annihilated in thought with
all its predicates； leaves behind a contradiction； and contradiction
is the only criterion of impossibility in the sphere of pure a
priori conceptions。
Against these general considerations； the justice of which no one
can dispute； one argument is adduced； which is regarded as
furnishing a satisfactory demonstration from the fact。 It is
affirmed that there is one and only one conception； in which the
non…being or annihilation of the object is self…contradictory； and
this is the conception of an ens realissimum。 It possesses； you say；
all reality； and you feel yourselves justified in admitting the
possibility of such a being。 （This I am willing to grant for the
present； although the existence of a conception which is not
self…contradictory is far from being sufficient to prove the
possibility of an object。）* Now the notion of all reality embraces
in it that of existence； the notion of existence lies； therefore； in
the conception of this possible thing。 If this thing is annihilated in
thought； the internal possibility of the thing is also annihilated；
which is self…contradictory。
*A conception is always possible； if it is not self…contradictory。
This is the logical criterion of possibility； distinguishing the
object of such a conception from the nihil negativum。 But it may be；
notwithstanding； an empty conception； unless the objective reality
of this synthesis； but which it is generated； is demonstrated； and a
proof of this kind must be based upon principles of possible
experience； and not upon the principle of analysis or contradiction。
This remark may be serviceable as a warning against concluding； from
the possibility of a conception… which is logical… the possibility
of a thing… which is real。
I answer： It is absurd to introduce… under whatever term
disguised… into the conception of a thing； which is to be cogitated
solely in reference to its possibility； the conception of its
existence。 If this is admitted； you will have apparently gained the
day； but in reality have enounced nothing but a mere tautology。 I ask；
is the proposition； this or that thing （which I am admitting to be
possible） exists； an analytical or a synthetical proposition？ If the
former； there is no addition made to the subject of your thought by
the affirmation of its existence； but then the conception in your
minds is identical with the thing itself； or you have supposed the
existence of a thing to be possible； and then inferred its existence
from its internal possibility… which is but a miserable tautology。 The
word reality