demonstration that there exists no Supreme Being； as the ground of all
that exists； or that this being possesses none of those properties
which we regard as analogical with the dynamical qualities of a
thinking being； or that； as the anthropomorphists would have us
believe； it is subject to all the limitations which sensibility
imposes upon those intelligences which exist in the world of
experience。
A Supreme Being is； therefore； for the speculative reason； a mere
ideal； though a faultless one… a conception which perfects and
crowns the system of human cognition； but the objective reality of
which can neither be proved nor disproved by pure reason。 If this
defect is ever supplied by a moral theology； the problematic
transcendental theology which has preceded； will have been at least
serviceable as demonstrating the mental necessity existing for the
conception； by the plete determination of it which it has
furnished； and the ceaseless testing of the conclusions of a reason
often deceived by sense； and not always in harmony with its own ideas。
The attributes of necessity； infinitude； unity； existence apart from
the world （and not as a world soul）； eternity （free from conditions of
time）； omnipresence （free from conditions of space）； omnipotence；
and others； are pure transcendental predicates； and thus the
accurate conception of a Supreme Being； which every theology requires；
is furnished by transcendental theology alone。
APPENDIX
APPENDIX。
Of the Regulative Employment of the Ideas of
Pure Reason。
The result of all the dialectical attempts of pure reason not only
confirms the truth of what we have already proved in our
Transcendental Analytic； namely； that all inferences which would
lead us beyond the limits of experience are fallacious and groundless；
but it at the same time teaches us this important lesson； that human
reason has a natural inclination to overstep these limits； and that
transcendental ideas are as much the natural property of the reason as
categories are of the understanding。 There exists this difference；
however； that while the categories never mislead us； outward objects
being always in perfect harmony therewith； ideas are the parents of
irresistible illusions； the severest and most subtle criticism being
required to save us from the fallacies which they induce。
Whatever is grounded in the nature of our powers will be found to be
in harmony with the final purpose and proper employment of these
powers； when once we have discovered their true direction and aim。
We are entitled to suppose； therefore； that there exists a mode of
employing transcendental ideas which is proper and immanent； although；
when we mistake their meaning； and regard them as conceptions of
actual things； their mode of application is transcendent and delusive。
For it is not the idea itself； but only the employment of the idea
in relation to possible experience； that is transcendent or
immanent。 An idea is employed transcendently； when it is applied to an
object falsely believed to be adequate with and to correspond to it；
imminently； when it is applied solely to the employment of the
understanding in the sphere of experience。 Thus all errors of
subreptio… of misapplication； are to be ascribed to defects of
judgement； and not to understanding or reason。
Reason never has an immediate relation to an object； it relates
immediately to the understanding alone。 It is only through the
understanding that it can be employed in the field of experience。 It
does not form conceptions of objects； it merely arranges them and
gives to them that unity which they are capable of possessing when the
sphere of their application has been extended as widely as possible。
Reason avails itself of the conception of the understanding for the
sole purpose of producing totality in the different series。 This
totality the understanding does not concern itself with； its only
occupation is the connection of experiences； by which series of
conditions in accordance with conceptions are established。 The
object of reason is； therefore； the understanding and its proper
destination。 As the latter brings unity into the diversity of
objects by means of its conceptions； so the former brings unity into
the diversity of conceptions by means of ideas； as it sets the final
aim of a collective unity to the operations of the understanding；
which without this occupies itself with a distributive unity alone。
I accordingly maintain that transcendental ideas can never be
employed as constitutive ideas； that they cannot be conceptions of
objects； and that； when thus considered； they assume a fallacious
and dialectical character。 But； on the other hand； they are capable of
an admirable and indispensably necessary application to objects… as
regulative ideas； directing the understanding to a certain aim； the
guiding lines towards which all its laws follow； and in which they all
meet in one point。 This point… though a mere idea （focus imaginarius）；
that is； not a point from which the conceptions of the understanding
do really proceed； for it lies beyond the sphere of possible
experience… serves； notwithstanding； to give to these conceptions
the greatest possible unity bined with the greatest possible
extension。 Hence arises the natural illusion which induces us to
believe that these lines proceed from an object which lies out of
the sphere of empirical cognition； just as objects reflected in a
mirror appear to be behind it。 But this illusion… which we may
hinder from imposing upon us… is necessary and unavoidable； if we
desire to see； not only those objects which lie before us； but those
which are at a great distance behind us； that is to say； when； in
the present case； we direct the aims of the understanding； beyond
every given experience； towards an extension as great as can
possibly be attained。
If we review our cognitions in their entire extent； we shall find
that the peculiar business of reason is to arrange them into a system；
that is to say； to give them connection according to a principle。 This
unity presupposes an idea… the idea of the form of a whole （of
cognition）； preceding the determinate cognition of the parts； and
containing the conditions which determine a priori to every part its
place and relation to the other parts of the whole system。 This
idea； accordingly； demands plete unity in the cognition of the
understanding… not the unity of a contingent aggregate； but that of
a system connected according to necessary laws。 It cannot be
affirmed with propriety that this idea is a conception of an object；
it is merely a conception of the plete unity of the conceptions
of objects； in so far as this unity is available to the
understanding as a rule。 Such conceptions of reason are not derived
from nature； on the contrary； we employ them for the interrogation and
investigation of nature； and regard our cognition as defective so long
as it is not adequate to them。 We admit that such a thing as pure
earth； pure water； or pure air； is not to be discovered。 And yet we
require these conceptions （which have their origin in the reason； so
far as regards their absolute purity and pleteness） for the purpose
of determining the share which each of these natural causes has in
every phenomenon。 Thus the different kinds of matter are all ref erred
to earths； as mere weight； to salts and inflammable bodies； as pure
force； and finally； to water and air； as the vehicula of the former；
or the machines employed by them in their operations… for the
purpose of explaining the chemical action and reaction of bodies in
accordance with the idea of a mechanism。 For； although not actually so
expressed； the influence of such ideas of reason is very observable in
the procedure of natural philosophers。
If reason is the faculty of deducing the particular from the
general； and if the general be certain in se and given； it is only
necessary that the judgement should subsume the particular under the
general； the particular being thus necessarily determined。 I shall
term this the demonstrative or apodeictic employment of reason。 If；
however； the general is admitted as problematical only； and is a
mere idea； the particular case is certain； but the universality of the
rule which applies to this particular case remains a problem。
Several particular cases； the certainty of which is beyond doubt；
are then taken and examined； for the purpose of discovering whether
the rule is applicable to them； and if it appears that all the
particular cases which can be collected follow from the rule； its
universality is inferred； and at the same time； all the causes which
have not； or cannot be presented to our observation； are concluded
to be of the same character with those which we have observed。 This
I shall term the hypothetical employment of the reason。
The hypothetical exercise of reason by the aid of ideas employed
as problematical conceptions is properly not constitutive。 That is
to say； if we consider the subject strictly； the truth of the rule；
which has been employed as an hypothesis； does not follow from the use
that is made of it by reason。 For how can we know all the possible
cases that may arise？ some of which may； however； prove exceptions
to the universality of the rule。 This employment of reason is merely
regulative； and its sole aim is the introduction of unity into the
aggregate of our particular cognitions； and thereby the
approximating of the rule to universality。
The object of the hypothetical employment of reason is therefore the
systematic unity of cognitions； and this unity is the criterion of the
truth of a rule。 On the other hand； this systematic unity… as a mere
idea… is in fact merely a unity projected； not to be regarded as
given； but only in the light of a problem… a problem which serves；
however； as a principle for the various and particular exercise of the
understanding in experience； directs it with regard to those cases
which are not presented to our observation； and introduces harmony and
consistency into all its operations。
All that we can be certain of from the above considerations is
that this