1. Immanuel Kant,Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (London, 1958), B634.
2. Bertrand Russell,A History of Western Philosophy (New York 1945), pp. 587?588.
3. Russell is not the only writer on the cosmological argument who thinks there is something superfluous about using a posteriori considerations to prove the existence of a necessary being. See, for example, H.J. Paton,The Modern Predicament (London, 1955), pp. 199?200, and Patterson Brown, ?St. Thomas' Doctrine of Necessary Being?,The Philosophical Review, 73.1 (January, 1964): 78. However, these writers, unlike Russell, do not attribute such a claim to Kant.
4. See Brown, op. cit., pp. 76?90.
5. For a thorough and illuminating discussion of the differences between the cosmological arguments of Leibniz and Clarke and those of Aquinas and Duns Scotus, see William L. Rowe,The Cosmological Argument (Princeton, 1975), chs. I and II.