Reflections on Thomas' Arguments for the Existence of God

Part 3, Where Did the Turtles Comes From?

In yesterday's post I highlighted the apophatic nature of Thomas' arguments for the existence of God. The universe cannot provide its own explanation, has no answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The universe must come from "somewhere," some Reason, Source, and Origin. And as Thomas says in the Summa, the word "God" has traditionally pointed toward that Reason, Source, and Origin. 

To be sure, people might claim that the material universe itself is "eternal" and needs no start or beginning. But that simply brackets out the Ontological Mystery of it all. The issue here isn't temporal, but ontological. The question isn't about eternity, but about existence itself and where it all comes from. Because even if the universe were eternal, the ontological question remains: Why and how did it get here? 

Of course, a person can respond that such questions are "beyond the bounds of science." Indeed they are! But that doesn't mean there aren't cogent and legitimate questions here. And whatever the answers to such questions might be, the word "God" has traditionally been used here.

These confusions between eternity and ontology are another common misunderstanding about Thomas' arguments for the existence of God. Specifically, skeptics of Thomas' arguments have often rebutted his premise that an infinite regress is impossible. Why couldn't it be? Why can't it be turtles all the way down?

A closely related issue here, one I hinted at in the last post, concerns God being the "First Cause" or the "Unmoved Mover" at the start of a temporal chain of events. It's often retorted that Thomas' arguments simply trade the impossibility of infinite regress with the impossibility of a uncaused cause at the start of a chain. Which is more believable or unbelievable here, infinite regress or uncaused cause? 

But as I said, there is a misunderstanding of Thomas on this point. A full reading of Thomas makes it clear that Thomas does not think of God as the first domino that falls in a series. When Thomas speaks of God as being a "cause" his imagination isn't temporal, but ontological. 

Go back to yesterday's post where I mentioned the Big Bang. Our material universe doesn't exist prior to the Big Bang. So some domino drops at that point. Physicists speculate about the nature of that primordial condition and what transpired to bring the cosmos into existence. People of faith might be tempted to think that what happened at the Big Bang was God's creative act, when God started time ticking and brought the material universe into existence. The assumption is that in Thomas' arguments against infinite regress he's talking about something like the Big Bang. 

But this isn't, in fact, what Thomas is talking about, about some temporal chain of events "starting off." Ontologically, science can't get "behind" the Big Bang. Any theory of the Big Bang has to assume some ontological ground. The physicist has to posit some equation. And the word "God" names the Ontological Mystery behind that equation, the primordial conditions and potentialities that all scientific theories of the Big Bang have to assume. The "nothing" posited by science the moment "before" the Big Bang isn't really Nothing. The physicist always assumes there is an equation that is at work. And Thomas' point is that the human mind will ask questions regarding the Origin of Source of that equation. Why this equation and not another? Why any equation at all? Such questions point to what we have traditionally called "God."

Summarizing, debates about infinity are missing Thomas' ontological argument. Because even if an infinite series were granted, the ontological question remains as to why that series exists in the first place. It might be turtles all the way down. But why are there turtles in the first place? And why turtles and not rabbits? Scientists stop talking at this point, as they must, and might wish away such questions. But again, just because science can't answer these questions doesn't mean they aren't real and legitimate. 

Key to getting clear about all this is how Thomas thinks about creation. Again, most people adopt a temporal imagination when it comes to creation. God created at the Big Bang. Creation is the first domino falling. Creation is the first link in a chain of events. Creation is "the beginning." But while creation may have had a "beginning," when time started and subatomic particles emerged out of the quantum foam, Thomas means more than this Big Bang imagination. For Thomas, creation isn't the start of a temporal sequence but names, rather, the constant and comprehensive ontological dependence of the cosmos. As the Source of material existence, God has a pervasive and ongoing relationship with the cosmos. As the Ground of Being, God is ever-present to and ever-holding material existence in being. God is the Ontological Backing of the universe. In this fuller sense, creation is continual, even if it had a "beginning."  

So, before you start debating the issue of "infinite regress," remember that, for Thomas, creation isn't the first domino falling but that which holds all the dominos in being, first to last. Turtles, even an infinite chain of them, exist for a Reason. And to inquire about that Reason--"Where did those turtles come from?"--is to ask a question about God.