as　the　transition　from　the　Notion　of　God　to　his　existence；　it　should　be　borne　in　mind　on　the　one
  hand　that　the　determinate　content；　God；　makes　no　difference　in　the　logical　process；　and　the
  ontological　proof　is　merely　an　application　of　this　logical　process　to　the　said　content。　On　the　other
  hand　however　it　is　essential　to　bear　in　mind　the　remark　made　above　that　the　subject　only　obtains
  determinateness　and　content　in　its　predicate；　until　then；　no　matter　what　it　may　be　for　feeling；
  intuition　and　pictorial　thinking；　for　rational　cognition　it　is　only　a　name；　but　in　the　predicate　with　its
  determinateness　there　begins；　at　the　same　time；　realisation　in　general。　The　predicates；　however；
  must　be　grasped　as　themselves　still　included　within　the　Notion；　hence　as　something　subjective；
  which　so　far　has　not　emerged　into　existence；　to　this　extent　we　must　admit　on　the　one　hand　that　the
  realisation　of　the　Notion　in　the　judgment　is　still　not　complete。　On　the　other　hand　however　the
  mere　determination　of　an　object　by　predicates；　when　that　determination　is　not　at　the　same　time　the
  realisation　and　objectifying　of　the　Notion；　also　remains　something　so　subjective　that　it　is　not　even
  the　genuine　cognition　and　determination　of　the　Notion　of　the　object…subjective　in　the　sense　of
  abstract　reflection　and　uncomprehended　pictorial　thinking。　God；　as　the　living　God；　and　still　more
  as　absolute　spirit；　is　known　only　in　his　activity；　man　was　early　instructed　to　recognise　God　in　his
  works；　only　from　these　can　proceed　the　determinations；　which　are　called　his　properties；　and　in
  which；　too；　his　being　is　contained。　Thus　the　philosophical　＇begreifende＇　cognition　of　his　activity；
  that　is；　of　himself；　grasps　the　Notion　of　God　in　his　being　and　his　being　in　his　Notion。　Being　merely
  as　such；　or　even　determinate　being；　is　such　a　meagre　and　restricted　determination；　that　the
  difficulty　of　finding　it　in　the　Notion　may　well　be　the　result　of　not　having　considered　what　being　or
  determinate　being　itself　is。　Being　as　the　wholly　abstract；　immediate　relation　to　self；　is　nothing
  else　than　the　abstract　moment　of　the　Notion；　which　moment　is　abstract　universality。　This
  universality　also　effects　what　one　demands　of　being；　namely；　to　be　outside　the　Notion；　for　though
  this　universality　is　moment　of　the　Notion；　it　is　equally　the　difference；　or　abstract　judgment；　of　the
  Notion　in　which　it　opposes　itself　to　itself。
  The　Notion；　even　as　formal；　already　immediately　contains　being　in　a　truer　and　richer　form；　in
  that；　as　self…related　negativity；　it　is　individuality。
  But　of　course　the　difficulty　of　finding　being　in　the　Notion　as　such　and　equally　in　the　Notion　of　God；
  becomes　insuperable　when　the　being　is　supposed　to　be　that　which　obtains　in　the　context　of　outer
  experience　or　in　the　form　of　sensuous　perception；　like　the　hundred　dollars　in　my　finances；
  something　to　be　grasped　with　the　hand；　not　with　the　mind；　something　visible　essentially　to　the
  outer；　not　to　the　inner　eye；　in　other　words；　when　that　being　which　things　possess　as　sensuous；
  temporal　and　perishable；　is　given　the　name　of　reality　or　truth。　A　philosophising　that　in　its　view　of
  being　does　not　rise　above　sense；　naturally　stops　short　at　merely　abstract　thought；　too；　in　its　view　of
  the　Notion；　such　thought　stands　opposed　to　being。
  The　custom　of　regarding　the　Notion　merely　as　something　one…sided；　such　as　abstract　thought　is；
  will　already　hinder　the　acceptance　of　what　was　suggested　above；　namely；　to　regard　the　transition
  from　the　Notion　of　God　to　his　being；　as　an　application　of　the　logical　course　of　objectification　of
  the　Notion　presented　above。　Yet　if　it　is　granted；　as　it　commonly　is；　that　the　logical　element　as　the
  formal　element　constitutes　the　form　for　the　cognition　of　every　determinate　content；　then　the　above
  relation　must　at　least　be　conceded；　unless　in　this　opposition　between　Notion　and　objectivity；　one
  stops　short　at　the　untrue　Notion　and　an　equally　untrue　reality；　as　something　ultimate。　But　in　the
  exposition　of　the　pure　Notion；　it　was　further　made　clear　that　this　is　the　absolute；　divine　Notion
  itself；　so　that　in　truth　the　relationship　of　our　application　would　not　obtain；　and　the　logical　process
  in　question　would　in　fact　be　the　immediate　exposition　of　God's　self…determination　to　being。　But　on
  this　point　it　is　to　be　remarked　that　if　the　Notion　is　to　be　presented　as　the　Notion　of　God；　it　is　to　be
  apprehended　as　it　is　when　taken　up　into　the　Idea。　This　pure　Notion　passes　through　the　finite　forms
  of　the　judgment　and　syllogism　because　it　is　not　yet　posited　as　in　its　own　nature　explicitly　one　with
  objectivity　but　is　grasped　only　in　process　of　becoming　it。　Similarly　this　objectivity；　too；　is　not　yet
  the　divine　existence；　is　not　yet　the　reality　that　is　reflected　in　the　divine　Idea。　Yet　objectivity　is　just
  that　much　richer　and　higher　than　the　being　or　existence　of　the　ontological　proof；　as　the　pure
  Notion　is　richer　and　higher　than　that　metaphysical　void　of　the　sum　total　of　all　reality。　But　1
  reserve　for　another　occasion　the　more　detailed　elucidation　of　the　manifold　misunderstanding　that
  has　been　brought　by　logical　formalism　into　the　ontological；　as　well　as　the　other；　so…called　proofs　of
  God's　existence；　as　also　the　Kantian　criticism　of　them；　and　by　establishing　their　true　significance；　to
  restore　the　fundamental　thoughts　of　these　proofs　to　their　worth　and　dignity。
  As　previously　remarked；　we　have　already　met　with　several　forms　of　immediacy；　though　in　different
  determinations。　In　the　sphere　of　being　immediacy　is　being　itself　and　determinate　being；　in　the
  sphere　of　essence　it　is　existence；　and　then　actuality　and　substantiality；　in　the　sphere　of　the　Notion；
  besides　immediacy　as　abstract　universality；　there　is　now　objectivity。　When　the　exactitude　of
  philosophical　distinctions　of　the　Notion　is　not　involved；　these　expressions　may　be　used　as
  synonymous；　but　the　determinations　mentioned　have　issued　from　the　necessity　of　the　Notion。
  Being　is　in　general　the　first　immediacy；　and　determinate　being　is　the　same　plus　the　first
  determinateness。　Existence；　along　with　things；　is　the　immediacy　that　issues　from　the　ground…from
  the　self…sublating　mediation　of　the　simple　reflection　of　essence。　But　actuality　and　substantiality　is
  the　immediacy　that　has　issued　from　the　sublated　difference　of　the　still　unessential　Existence　as
  Appearance　and　its　essentiality。　Finally；　objectivity　is　the　immediacy　to　which　the　Notion
  determines　itself　by　the　sublation　of　its　abstraction　and　mediation。　Philosophy　has　the　right　to　select
  from　the　language　of　common　life　which　is　made　for　the　world　of　pictorial　thinking；　such
  expressions　as　seem　to　approximate　to　the　determinations　of　the　Notion。　There　cannot　be　any
  question　of　demonstrating　for　a　word　selected　from　the　language　of　common　life　that　in　common
  life；　too；　one　associates　with　it　the　same　Notion　for　which　philosophy　employs　it；　for　common　life
  has　no　Notions；　but　only　pictorial　thoughts　and　general　ideas；　and　to　recognise　the　Notion　in　what
  is　else　a　mere　general　idea　is　philosophy　itself。　It　must　suffice　therefore　if　pictorial　thinking；　in　the
  use　of　its　expressions　that　are　employed　for　philosophical　determinations；　has　before　it　some　vague
  idea　of　their　distinctive　meaning；　just　as　it　may　be　the　case　that　in　these　expressions　one　recognises
  nuances　of　pictorial　thought　that　are　more　closely　related　to　the　corresponding　Notions。　One　will
  be　less　ready；　perhaps；　to　admit　that　something　can　be　without　existing；　but　at　least；　one　will
  hardly　use　'being'　as　copula　of　the　judgment　as　interchangeable　with　the　expression　'to　exist'　and
  say；　'this　article　exists　dear；　suitable；　etc。'；　'gold　exists　a　metal　or　metallic'；　instead　of　'this　article　is
  dear；　suitable；　etc。'；　'gold　is　a　metal　or　metallic'。
  And　surely　it　is　usual　to　distinguish　between　being　and　appearing；　appearance　and　actuality；　as
  well　as　to　distinguish　mere　being　from　actuality；　and　still　more　all　these　expressions　from
  objectivity。　However；　even　should　they　be　employed　synonymously；　philosophy　will　in　any　case
  be　free　to　utilise　such　empty　superfluity　of　language　for　its　distinctions。
  When　treating　of　the　apodeictic　judgment…the　consummation　of　the　judgment…where　the　subject
  loses　its　determinateness　as　against　the　predicate；　we　referred　to　the　twofold　meaning　of
  subjectivity　originating　therefrom；　namely；　the　subjectivity　of　the　Notion；　and　equally　of　the
  externality　and　contingency　opposed　to　the　Notion。　A　similar　twofold　meaning　also　appears　for
  objectivity　which　stands　opposed　to　the　self…subsistent　Notion；　yet　is　also　the　being　that　is
  in…and…for…itself。　In　the　former　sense；　the　object　stands　opposed　to　the　I　=　I　which　in　subjective
  idealism　is　enunciated　as　the　absolutely　true；　in　that　case　it　is　the　manifold　world　in　its　immediate
  existence　with　which　the　ego　or　the　Notion　only　engages　in　never…ending　struggle；　in　order；　by　the
  negation　of　the　intrinsic　nullity　of　this　other；　to　give　to　the　first　certainty　of　self　the　actual　truth　of
  its　equality　with　itself。　In　a　less　specific　sense　it　denotes　an　object　in　general　for　any　interest　or
  activity　of　the　subject。
  But　in　the　opposite　sense；　objectivity　signifies　that　which　is　in　and　for　itself；　and　free　from
  limitation　and　opp