To the best of my ability, I will gladly do so. So we both agree that nonbeing is best categorized as pure potency, correct? Well, that be so, is it also safe to say that creation is the reduction of potency to act? That is to say, something wasn’t there (perhaps an attribute), yet it became there through the work of an efficient cause, yes? For if we were to say such then it seems to me that would be an admittance that nothing can become something (for if nothing is potency - due to their complete lack of existence in a given respect - and something is act - for they are both existent in some respect - , and change is predicated on the idea of potency coming to act, then it seems as if it is shown on the basis of definition that nothing comes to something).
The fair objection I see to this is that it doesn’t demonstrate that nothing can be the material cause, for the potency lies specifically in the material and is not the material itself . However, I think that may be missing the point, which is that something was not there (perhaps a table) and that something came about through the actualization of potency (even if the potency was present in something which already held some actuality).
Furthermore, since we both recognize that nonbeing is pure potency, than it necessarily follows, I believe, that it can therefore be actualized into something (for potentiality is the deprivation of a certain quality which could be held but isn’t held).
