CAUSES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE 291

how about the universe considered as one great, unimaginably

complex whole ? In the first place, does reason absolutely

show that it must have had a beginning? That our own

world, her sister planets, and our whole solar system must

have had a beginning can hardly be questioned ; but it does

not seem necessarily thence to follow that the same must be

said of the whole cosmos. It certainly is not evident to us

that the cosmos, considered as one vast unity, must have

had a beginning, or need ever come to an end. For all we

see, the universe may constitute a true system of perpetual

motion in one of two ways. It may be conceived of (i) as

eternally passing, as one whole, from a state of nebula to

that of suns, with their attendant planets, their satellites, etc.,

and thence backwards to a state of nebula once more, and

so alternating in one unending rhythm, unceasingly pulsating,

to and from a nebular condition, for ever and ever; or (2)

as undergoing such changes partially, at one time here, at

another time there, such a change eternally creeping, as it

were, over the face of the cosmos, so that each part in turn,

but never the whole simultaneously, may undergo such a

transformation.

Such conditions, for anything that reason can affirm with

certainty, might be eternal as the result of an eternal

arrangement or collocation of causal agencies and con-

ditions.

As we before pointed out,* our reason by no means affirms

that everything must have a cause, but only changes, new

existences, and existences which do not contain within

themselves any sufficient reasons for their being.

Now if the universe ever had a beginning, it must

evidently have had a cause. If it never had a beginning,

it must as a whole have eternally been what we now see

it to be, substantially, whatever the succession of changes

See ante, p. 257.

how about the universe considered as one great, unimaginably

complex whole ? In the first place, does reason absolutely

show that it must have had a beginning? That our own

world, her sister planets, and our whole solar system must

have had a beginning can hardly be questioned ; but it does

not seem necessarily thence to follow that the same must be

said of the whole cosmos. It certainly is not evident to us

that the cosmos, considered as one vast unity, must have

had a beginning, or need ever come to an end. For all we

see, the universe may constitute a true system of perpetual

motion in one of two ways. It may be conceived of (i) as

eternally passing, as one whole, from a state of nebula to

that of suns, with their attendant planets, their satellites, etc.,

and thence backwards to a state of nebula once more, and

so alternating in one unending rhythm, unceasingly pulsating,

to and from a nebular condition, for ever and ever; or (2)

as undergoing such changes partially, at one time here, at

another time there, such a change eternally creeping, as it

were, over the face of the cosmos, so that each part in turn,

but never the whole simultaneously, may undergo such a

transformation.

Such conditions, for anything that reason can affirm with

certainty, might be eternal as the result of an eternal

arrangement or collocation of causal agencies and con-

ditions.

As we before pointed out,* our reason by no means affirms

that everything must have a cause, but only changes, new

existences, and existences which do not contain within

themselves any sufficient reasons for their being.

Now if the universe ever had a beginning, it must

evidently have had a cause. If it never had a beginning,

it must as a whole have eternally been what we now see

it to be, substantially, whatever the succession of changes

See ante, p. 257.