f-existent. The only personality that we know is the human
personality, and that is certainly derived. Our whole knowledge of human
personality is that of something which is derived from pre-existing
personalities, each of which is a centre of derived influences. Of
personality as either the cause or the commencement of a series we have
not the slightest conception. And the man who says he has can never have
carefully examined the contents of his own mind.

The truth is that the fact of the existence of the universe provides no
ground for argument in favour of either Atheism or Theism. Existence is
a common datum for all. Some existence must be assumed in all argument
since all argument implies something that is to be discussed and
explained. And for that very reason we can offer no explanation of
existence itself, since all explanation means the merging of one class
of facts in a larger class. The largest class of facts we have is that
which is included in the term "universe," and we cannot explain that by
assuming another existence--God--about which we know nothing. To explain
the unknown by the known is an intelligible procedure. To explain the
known by the unknown is to forsake all intellectual sanity. Thus every
difficulty that surrounds the conception of the universe as an ultimate
fact, surrounds the existence of God as an ultimate fact. You cannot get
rid of a difficulty by giving it another name. And whether we call
ultimate existence "God," or "matter," or "substance," is of no vital
importance to anyone who keeps his mind on the real issue that has to be
decided. If the question, What is the cause of existence? be a
legitimate one, it applies no less to the existence of God than it does
to the existence of matter, or force, or substance. All that we gain is
another problem which we add to the problems we already possess. We
increase our burden without enlarging our comprehension. If, on the
other hand, it is said that we need an all embracing formula that will
make our conception of the universe coherent, it may be replied that we
have that in such a conception as the persistence of force. And it is
surely better to keep to a formula that does at least work, than to
devise one that is altogether useless.

The inherent weakness of the theistic conception will be best seen by
taking an orthodox presentation of the argument under consideration. In
his well-known work on "Theism," Professor Flint says "that grant