conceive a being[1] capable of creating it; if the mind sinks beneath the weight of one, is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the burden?—The other argument which is founded upon a man's knowledge of his own existence stands thus.—A man knows not only he now is, but that there was a time when he did not exist,[2] consequently there must have been a cause.—But what does this prove? we can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects;—But there certainly is a generative power which is effected by particular instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments, nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration; we admit that the generative power is incomprehensible, but to suppose that the same effect is produced by an eternal, omniscient, Almighty[3] Being, leaves the cause in the same obscurity, but renders it more incomprehensible.
The 3rd. and last degree of assent is claimed by Testimony—it is required that it should not be contrary to reason.—The testimony that the Deity convinces the senses of men of his existence can only be admitted by us, if our mind considers it less probable that these men should have been deceived, than that the Deity should have appeared to them—our reason can never admit the testimony of men, who not only declare that they were eye-witnesses of miracles but that the Deity was irrational, for he commanded that he should be believed,
- ↑ In Queen Mab the words beyond its limits are introduced after being.
- ↑ These nine words are replaced in Queen Mab by four,—once he was not; and the next sentence, instead of But what does this prove? is— "But our idea of causation is alone derivable from the constant conjunction of objects and the consequent inference of one from the other; and, reasoning experimentally, we can," &c.
- ↑ We read omnipotent in Queen Mab, where the next paragraph begins thus: 3rd. Testimony. It is claimed that testimony, &c.
