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
prehend 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 assert 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 pleteness 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 assertions… 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 assertion 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 plete
the regress through the conditions of existence； without admitting the
existence of a necessary being； but； on the other hand； I cannot
make a mencement 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 plete a priori； the other
forbidding us ever to hope for the attainment of this pleteness；
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