According to its derivation, nature (_natura_--_nascitur_) means that which is born or produced--_the becoming_; that which has a beginning and an end; that which has not the cause of its existence in itself, and the cause of which must be sought in something antecedent to and beyond itself--that is, nature is _the phenomenal_. This the word itself expresses in the strongest manner. That which begins to be, as the necessary consequence of antecedent conditions, is _natural_. The co-existence, resemblance, and succession of phenomena constitute the _order of nature_; and the uniformity of these relations among phenomena are the _laws of nature_. So much is clear from the stand-point of mere empirical science. Now if law is "the uniformity of relations among phenomena,"[246] then it is equally clear that the phrase "uniformity of natural law" is meaningless, for, by the definition, the uniformity itself is the law, and the expression is simply equivalent to "the uniformity of the uniformity," which is absurd. Furthermore, if "nature" is the phenomenal--the becoming--then the word can not be properly employed to denote the causes of that becoming, unless by causes we understand antecedent conditions, which, as we shall presently see, are not real causes. Nature, or the sum-total of phenomena, is an _effect_--an effect which demands a cause. There can be no phenomena without change, no change without motion, no motion without force, no force without Spirit, for Spirit-force is the only force of which we have any knowledge or consciousness. A rational Will, and not a blind necessity, must stand at the fountain-head of being, and uniformity in nature must be the result of _reason_ and _choice_.