The question is
still reasonable, why this particular succession of causes
existed from eternity, and not any other succession, or no
succession at all. If there be no necessarily existent being, any
supposition which can be formed is equally possible; nor is there
any more absurdity in Nothing's having existed from eternity,
than there is in that succession of causes which constitutes the
universe. What was it, then, which determined Something to exist
rather than Nothing, and bestowed being on a particular
possibility, exclusive of the rest? External causes, there are
supposed to be none. Chance is a word without a meaning. Was it
Nothing? But that can never produce any thing. We must,
therefore, have recourse to a necessarily existent Being, who
carries the REASON of his existence in himself, and who cannot be
supposed not to exist, without an express contradiction. There
is, consequently, such a Being; that is, there is a Deity.
I shall not leave it to P/HILO\, said C/LEANTHES\, though I
know that the starting objections is his chief delight, to point
out the weakness of this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to me
so obviously ill-grounded, and at the same time of so little
consequence to the cause of true piety and religion, that I shall
myself venture to show the fallacy of it.
I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident
absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to
prove it by any arguments a priori.
Pages:
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118