Of the two general arguments for the existence of God, the ontological and the cosmological, the cosmological seems not only to have correct logical presumptions and superior convincing power, but it also raises more interesting and valid philosophical questions than the ontological and leads to a better understanding of how to think about these questions. Being oriented more towards the scientific and empirical pole of thought, I have chosen the argument that stands up better under logical analysis and visible application. Both arguments, of course, are necessarily based upon presumptions, as all arguments and ideas are, but while the cosmological argument is based on valid assumptions, the ontological argument is not.
The ontological argument presupposes several ideas that cause it to be flawed in some few respects. The general form of the argument takes the assumption that every person has a concept of God that includes the idea of perfection, or the Supreme Being of which there is none greater. A lesser being can only be created by a greater being, and the only being greater than ourselves in any level of thought must be assumed to be more perfect, according to the ontological argument, and any concept of God must include the most perfection available in order to be on a level greater than everything that He has created (the universe). The essence of this perfection, according to the ontological argument, incorporates existence as an essential part of itself, for the ontologist cannot imagine that anything could be perfect without including existence as a part of its perfection. There are two assumptions made by this point that break the argument. The first is that every idea of God is innately consistent as far as perfection and transcendence are concerned. Despite Descartes' objections to the contrary, this assumption is not a valid one, and can not be a firm basis for any kind of proof for God's existence. The second false assumption is the surmise that anyone who is not inherently perfect can determine the nature of perfection, or any absolute truth for that matter. Speculation certainly is in order, and plausible assumptions are quite likely true, but these can neither be proved empirically nor logically, and therefore are not valid presuppositions for an argument based on logic and reason.
The assumptions of the cosmological argument are a bit different. They hinge upon the idea of causation and contingency of cause, or the principle of sufficient reason. There must be a cause for every effect, or a reason for every action, idea, or object. The existence of anything can be traced to a cause or reason for its existence, and those to a prior cause. To say that something has no cause at all would be irrational, for if there is no cause, then it follows that there would not be existence. If a coin is flipped, and it lands heads, it is not by any mere random chance, but a combination of the forces of physics; the weight of the coin, the force and direction in which it is flipped, these all are the causes for the resulting stated of the coin. There is not a lack of cause for the coin to turn up heads, and there are of course causes for those causes etectera. This does not rule out the idea of self- causation, the idea that something exists without depending on anything other than itself for existence. It should be noted that cause in this context should be read to be "essential for the existence of the result." That is, the result is dependent for its existence upon its cause. With this in mind, the principle of sufficient reason seems to be valid at any point, even if one takes the view that everything exists by reason of some internal "order" or inherent properties of existence, in which the cause would be, obviously, the innate property itself (though the causes of these internal properties of order are open to some debate :).
The moral and design arguments, while presenting valid points, rely on the principal of sufficient reason to a great degree as well. For any internal morality to be present, there must also be a cause of said morality, and that cause must be a higher power (by the views of those such as C.S. Lewis and Immanuel Kant). Any great and intricate design would presuppose a great and intricate designer; a designer who would in some sense have to be greater than his creation if for no other reason than the act of the designer's creativity. These views, however, succumb to the flaws of the ontological argument, namely the assumption that perfection can be defined by a less perfect being. This does not, however, reduce the importance of the causality of the universe.
Adhering to the principal of sufficient reason, then for any single cause, there should be a previous cause, and for that cause, a cause previous, and so on. This would create an infinite regress, which, while not actually unacceptable in itself, is not handy when attempting to prove the existence of God. If we take it that every result is dependent for its existence upon its cause, then by logic, the causes would stretch back (the word "back" is used loosely) ad infinitum to a limit that would have to be the Ultimate Cause, or Necessary Being. This Necessary Being is by definition self-caused, and can depend upon, for its existence, nothing but itself. To make this seeming leap from infinite regress to beyond the end of infinity, it is necessary to have some concept of actual infinity and its limits, and "Higher Space" (often called space-time or n- dimensional space).
The great German mathematician Georg Cantor once said that being uncomfortable with infinity as being a manageable concept "is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite." The concept of infinity is central to the matter of the infinite regress and the end of boundlessness. In mathematics, infinity is treated as something that continues forever toward a finite limit. In the case of causal relationships, the prior cause must continue eternally, and at the edge of this eternity is God. This type of treatment of infinity is not flagitious or unfavorable. In fact, when thought of this way, infinity is in fact an auspicious tool for dealing with God and any conclusions that we may come to concerning Him.
As theologian Arthur Willink states in his 1893 work The World of the Unseen:
"For he [God], dwelling in the Highest Space of all, not only has this perfect view of all the constituents of your being, but also is most infinitely near to every point and particle of our whole constitution."Willink's "Highest Space" is the highest space of higher dimensions or levels of reality. He reasons that as a 2- dimensional surface is part of our 3-dimensional universe, so is our 3-dimensional universe an integral part of a 4- dimensional universe, and one of 4-dimensions a part of a 5- dimensional one, continuing to an *-dimensional space. It is in this *-dimensional space that God takes his perspective. Reminiscent of the concept of the "wholly other," this ultimately "outside" perspective would seem to be a necessary feature of God. Here, I feel that a small point must be made: it is not the nature of God that defines his infiniteness, but rather the infiniteness of the regressing cause that defines the nature of God. The end- point of the infinite regress is the ultimate cause for every creation and effect, and these are the causes of still more. As Cantor puts it, this infinity, "in its highest form has created and sustained us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds."
Such talk about infinity is sure to fill one with some sense of awe, not unlike Otto's numinous aspects of the sacred. Not only does infinity inspire a numinous quality, but it also seems to fit in neatly with the entire view of sacredness. Buber's idea of unboundedness in dealing with the concept of the eternal Thou is one of the more obvious examples. James' classifications of mystical states seem to all attune at some time with infinity. The first, ineffability, is a sure mark of the infinite. Just as a mystical experience is not easily explained, infinity is nearly unexplainable in practical application. Only by analogy can it be generally comprehended. An experience of the comprehension of infinity often brings about the Noetic quality moreover would seem to include transience as well.
When this idea of infinity being somewhat "holy" or "sacred" is integrated with the principle of sufficient reason and its implications, then we see an overall coherency that seems to point more strongly than ever to a form of God or Existence of a God. When God can be equated with infinity, then self-cause becomes an easy matter, by virtue of the inclusiveness of the infinite. As the door of the room is the upper limit of the infinite distance traveled in Zeno's paradox, so is infinity the upper limit of God and God the upper limit of causation.
Summarily, the cosmological argument from the viewpoint of contingency is, when the concepts of infinity and the outer limits of unboundedness are introduced, a very strong and convincing argument of God's existence for those who are scientifically and logically inclined, and in the same capacity, suits the other, more metaphysical and mystical properties normally attributed to God.
Written Spring 1995