Divine Conservation Question

[casabolg]

The assertion of Divine Conservation is that something transcendent brings reality into being at all times. However, the arguments from causality to assert this deal with the contingency of things that are - in essence - the organization of fundamental elements in nature. What is to say that these fundamental elements themselves NEED CAUSE and makes the idea of them simply always being so difficult for scholastics to support?

 

[thinkandmull]

The assertion of Divine Conservation is that something transcendent brings reality into being at all times. However, the arguments from causality to assert this deal with the contingency of things that are - in essence - the organization of fundamental elements in nature. What is to say that these fundamental elements themselves NEED CAUSE and makes the idea of them simply always being so difficult for scholastics to support?

You can read Peter Kreeft on contingency. It is like the teleological argument though. You have to see it with a certain among of natural faith. Maybe other people can explain it better though

 

[casabolg]

No one else?

 

[fisherman_carl]

The assertion of Divine Conservation is that something transcendent brings reality into being at all times. However, the arguments from causality to assert this deal with the contingency of things that are - in essence - the organization of fundamental elements in nature. What is to say that these fundamental elements themselves NEED CAUSE and makes the idea of them simply always being so difficult for scholastics to support?

Check out “Dr* Edward Feser - An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence …
vimeo.com/60979789
edwardfeser.com/mediaappearances.html

 

[e_c]

I’m not sure I understand the question. Here’s my answer based on my shaky understanding.

All things with parts must be put together by another, and therefore they must be caused. Only what is perfectly simple (including no admixture of potency and act) is truly without cause, and is therefore necessary in an unqualified sense (God).

Because the created world does not exist through its own essence (only God’s essence is the same as His existence), it must be sustained by the primary cause which brought it about, reducing them from pure potency (“prime matter”) to their current state of a mixture of act and potency. If there were no sustaining of them, they would lose their necessity altogether, since they are only “relatively necessary” (since they are caused by what is absolutely necessary).

Am I getting at it?