Because something exists, something must have existed always. The mind can not realize the fact that existence or change can take place without a cause. If nothing had originally existed, we can not possibly conceive that any thing could ever have existed. Causes absolutely the same must, in the same circumstances, produce absolutely the same effects. This, I think, is self-evident, and admitted as such. An absolute want of cause involves an absolute sameness of an opposite kind, and must, with nearly the same evidence, continue forever. The necessity of causes to all the changes of being is universally admitted. No absurdity can be greater than to argue with a man who denies the connection between cause and effect. He himself, in speaking, admits himself to be the cause of the words he utters, and of the opinions he communicates, and the act of arguing admits you to be a similar cause. If his body be not a cause, and your eyes another cause, you can not see him. If his voice and your ears be not causes, you can not hear him. If your mind and his be not causes, you can not understand him. Mr. Locke presents the argument substantially as follows: Every man knows with absolute certainty that he himself exists. He knows, also, that he did not always exist, but began to be. It is clearly certain to him that his existence is caused, and not casual, and was produced by a cause adequate to the production. By an adequate cause is invariably intended a cause possessing and exerting an efficacy to bring any effect to pass. In the present case an adequate cause is one possessing and exerting all the understanding necessary to contrive and the power necessary to create such a being as the man in question. This cause is what we are accustomed to call God. The understanding necessary to conceive and the power necessary to create a being compounded of the human soul and body admit of no limits. He who can contrive and create such a being can contrive and create any thing. He who actually contrived and created man certainly contrived and created all things. This argument is conclusive. It has not been nor will it ever be answered except with sophistry or sneers. I do not affirm that every step of it is attended with what logicians call intuitive evidence, nor that it amounts to what is, in the logical sense, an absolute demonstration. But it is in every step attended with such evidence as excludes all rational doubt, and approaches so near the character of a demonstration as to leave the mind completely satisfied. At the same time it is opposed to no counter evidence. The state of existing things completely proves the being of a God. The argument derived from this source is presented by Bishop Berkley in a clear and forcible manner, and is substantially as follows: