Philosophical Proof of a Creator/Beats Aquinas!

[nkbeth]

Correct. They are a type of efficient cause called preparatory efficient causes. They are agents that bring the matter (the wood) into a proper disposition to receive the new form (ash). They can be antecedent, certainly, but, no substantial change, i.e., no new form has yet to be brought forth. In other words, no change has occurred that one would call “fundamental” to the matter in any sense.

All the preparatory efficient causes you mention, “gathered, chopped, carried, dried, etc.”, do, is arrange the matter so that the intended effect will come forth from it. The natural form of ash is contained within the potencies of the wood, and, as change goes on there is an emergence of the form into act. In times past, it was said that the statue was “in the stone”; that the artist merely chipped away the excess stone in order to bring forth the form. This is a way of thinking of how privation “exists” in primary and secondary matter.

Don’t get wrapped around the mechanical aspects of what I said. Think about the change at the precise moment of it, when the wood ceases to be wood and becomes ash. Prior to that, it was still wood.

jd

Thanks. I think I understand now how at any given NOW the cause must exist simultaneously with its effect (because of the “existential dependence” of the effect on the cause - as illustrated by Dr. Bonnette’s example(s))

Using the phrase preparatory efficient causes is helpful for “preconditions” that do occur earlier in time but are just a “predisposition of the matter”.

To nkbeth and JDaniel:
Part of the problem is that most people are not very conversant with hylemorphic or metaphysical terminology. So, when they hear about causes being simultaneous with effects, they get confused. Too many causes: efficient, preparatory, final, instrumental, principal, material, formal, secondary, primary, exemplary, moral, antecedent, and so forth.

How about immediate cause, remote cause, proximate cause, ultimate cause, …

It is easy to mix these up. When I hear just “cause” in this thread or even “efficient cause” I have included remote causes, ultimate causes etc, as we do commonly outside of metaphysical discussion. E.g. I call “hitting the iceburg” the cause of Titanic sinking even though it occurred earlier than the actual sinking. (The impact was over before the boat sank) But I do see now that hitting the iceburg could be called a preparatory efficient cause, and that it is not the type of cause that we are talking about here (or in the context of St. Thomas’ 5 ways)

Is there a name (or one that could be devised) for the causality that is generally being discussed here, e.g. “existential efficient cause” ? Or Dr. Bonette you have used “presently acting direct causes”, or “here and now causes” (and “here and now” effects).

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear nkbeth,

I just like to use the term, “cause.” A “cause” is anything which in any way influences the being or becoming of another. Cause, like being itself, is an analogous term, which is why it can be described in so many ways depending on what aspect of its activity you consider.

If you are talking about a genuine “cause,” you are talking about an extrinsic sufficient reason for an effect. And effect is any being whose sufficient reason for being is not entirely within itself. By definition, an effect cannot exist without a cause here and now accounting for its existence or mode of existence. Something can be an effect in either the accidental or substantial order. But in both cases, this means that it has some aspect of its existence which it fails to account for by its very own nature. The only Being whose nature CAN account for its very existence is God, in whom nature (or essence) is identical with existence itself. That is, God exists by His own nature. Ego sum qui sum. I am Who am. All creatures receive existence from God as a perfection superadded to their natures, and in virtue of which their natures have actual existence.

To avoid the confusion arising from so many types of cause, I prefer just to think in terms of cause in any order as having the same basic definition: an extrinsic sufficient reason. Thus, matter is the ESR for the individuation of form, form is the ESR for the specification of matter, efficient cause is the ESR for the production of anything, final cause is the ESR for the goal toward which something acts, and so forth.

If you grasp the most general character of cause and effect, you can then apply the concepts to any specific context – without fear of error.

Remember, metaphysics is an entire science unto itself, and it is simply the study of being insofar as it is being.

 

[JDaniel]

How about immediate cause, remote cause, proximate cause, ultimate cause, …

In this thread, and in much of this forum, we are dealing with metaphysical causality, the causality of Being precisely as Being. In this regard, our primary concern is how Being (a) comes to be, or (b) how Being remains in Being. The causes relative to Being, in the metaphysical sense, are the four I mentioned in an earlier post: material, formal, efficient and final plus, occasionally, chance.

The causes you mention are of a different order. They are causes of the actions and interactions between physical things and other physical things. So for example, striking the cue ball with a cue stick is the remote cause of the cue ball striking a second ball setting it in motion. These expressions describe things such as local motion, or placement, but, the effects are non-fundamental. In other words, they have nothing to do with the “existence” or “being” or “mode of being” of a thing. To be a metaphysical cause means to be a cause which brings a being into being or holds a being in being.

Further, metaphysical causes are the causes upon which the effect depends in order to come to be, pass away, or exist. Generally speaking, the causes you mentioned are not necessary causes in that they are not necessary to the being or existence of the effect. Thus, "…immediate cause, remote cause, proximate cause, ultimate cause…"are non-fundamental causes of everyday events.

It is easy to mix these up. When I hear just “cause” in this thread or even “efficient cause” I have included remote causes, ultimate causes etc, as we do commonly outside of metaphysical discussion. E.g. I call “hitting the iceberg” the cause of Titanic sinking even though it occurred earlier than the actual sinking. (The impact was over before the boat sank) But I do see now that hitting the iceberg could be called a preparatory efficient cause, and that it is not the type of cause that we are talking about here (or in the context of St. Thomas’ 5 ways)

It’s not. Hitting the iceberg is a reason, or cause, of the ship sinking - in other words, changing locations, which is a non-fundamental effect. It is important to the ship only in the sense that the ship has been deprived of its proper use by its owners and passengers. As far as being is concerned, it is still in being. Due to the actions of seawater on the steel and iron, working as an efficient cause, the ship will disintegrate over time. Not because the causal sequence requires time, but, that each molecule of steel or iron must change from being steel or iron and turn into rust - a different material - but, it can’t all at once because of the thickness of the metal bulkheads, etc.

If the technology had been available, the Titanic might have been floated to the surface, repaired and could have re-embarked on a new voyage - not metaphysical. When the Titanic is nothing but rust, it can’t be fixed to do anything (except serve as a reef) - metaphysical.

I hope this makes sense. If not, let me know and I will try to clarify it.

jd

 

[nkbeth]

In this thread, and in much of this forum, we are dealing with metaphysical causality, the causality of Being precisely as Being. In this regard, our primary concern is how Being (a) comes to be, or (b) how Being remains in Being. The causes relative to Being, in the metaphysical sense, are the four I mentioned in an earlier post: material, formal, efficient and final plus, occasionally, chance.

The causes you mention are of a different order. They are causes of the actions and interactions between physical things and other physical things. So for example, striking the cue ball with a cue stick is the remote cause of the cue ball striking a second ball setting it in motion. These expressions describe things such as local motion, or placement, but, the effects are non-fundamental. In other words, they have nothing to do with the “existence” or “being” or “mode of being” of a thing. To be a metaphysical cause means to be a cause which brings a being into being or holds a being in being.

Further, metaphysical causes are the causes upon which the effect depends in order to come to be, pass away, or exist. Generally speaking, the causes you mentioned are not necessary causes in that they are not necessary to the being or existence of the effect. Thus, "…immediate cause, remote cause, proximate cause, ultimate cause…"are non-fundamental causes of everyday events.

jd

That was enlightening, thanks! I should have got that from Dr. Bonnette’s emphasis on “being” and “coming to be”.

I guess I was thinking of a “state of things (even physical)” as being some kind of being. But I already knew that this was in some way not “fundamental”; there is no no real “being” with “form” and “matter” - even in the sense of “being” I normally would use.

I know my lack of training in metaphysics is showing!

Thank you and Dr. Bonnete for doing an excellent job of explaining these things. I know I’m not comprehending or retaining everything but I think this has been worthwhile even for me.

Hitting the iceberg is a reason, or cause, of the ship sinking - in other words, changing locations, which is a non-fundamental effect. It is important to the ship only in the sense that the ship has been deprived of its proper use by its owners and passengers. As far as being is concerned, it is still in being. Due to the actions of seawater on the steel and iron, working as an efficient cause, the ship will disintegrate over time. Not because the causal sequence requires time, but, that each molecule of steel or iron must change from being steel or iron and turn into rust - a different material - but, it can’t all at once because of the thickness of the metal bulkheads, etc.
…
I hope this makes sense. If not, let me know and I will try to clarify it.

jd

I understand that just the “sinking” did not cause the Titanic to go out of existence. But are you saying that it didn’t (or won’t) go out of existence until each molecule turned to rust ?

 

[JDaniel]

That was enlightening, thanks! I should have got that from Dr. Bonnette’s emphasis on “being” and “coming to be”.

I guess I was thinking of a “state of things (even physical)” as being some kind of being. But I already knew that this was in some way not “fundamental”; there is no no real “being” with “form” and “matter” - even in the sense of “being” I normally would use.

I know my lack of training in metaphysics is showing!

Thank you and Dr. Bonnete for doing an excellent job of explaining these things. I know I’m not comprehending or retaining everything but I think this has been worthwhile even for me.

I understand that just the “sinking” did not cause the Titanic to go out of existence. But are you saying that it didn’t (or won’t) go out of existence until each molecule turned to rust ?

At least enough of them so that the ship is useless, in a sense, as a floating ship carrying passengers. I suppose that the ship could corrode to a point and still be useful in some manner.

Think of it as a wood log. It takes a while for the wood to completely burn up, because the log is thick.That is what often makes us think that the metaphysical causes occur inside of a sequence of time. It is important to remember that small part that is still wood, whether it’s a molecule, or a chip, and that real change only takes place in the instant that wood changes to ash.

jd

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear nkbeth and JDaniel,

I really hate to confuse things already otherwise well-expressed, but I must try to clarify what I am saying.

Being and coming-to-be occur in the accidental as well as the substantial orders.

That is why existential Thomists, such as Etienne Gilson, emphasize that in the First Way, it is the existence of the motion that the argument relies upon to achieve the conclusion that Pure Act is God.

Most instances of coming-to-be in the finite world are not in the substantial order, but in the accidental order. Thus, the motion of cue balls on a table are instances of accidental change which is local motion. Still, the coming-to-be of these changes are the proper subject matter of the First Way.

I have published an article entitled “A Variation on the First Way of St. Thomas Aquinas” in Faith & Reason, 8:1 (Spring, 1982), in which I explain this matter fully, documenting it textually in the works of St. Thomas.

The thrust of the First Way is to show that any change whatever entails the coming-to-be of “new existence” which needs an adequate cause, and that the Sole Adequate Cause of all such “new existence” cannot be anything already existing in the finite order, since all finite beings are “finite” precisely in that they are limited to the existential perfections which they already possess. If anything is genuinely “new” in the finite order, then it needs, ultimately, to have a Source which is entirely transcendent to the finite order.

Suffice it to say, though, for the present, that the change or motion of which St. Thomas speaks in the First Way, belongs both to the accidental and substantial orders – and that nearly infinitely more changes or comings-to-be occur in the accidental order than do in the substantial order.

Thus, we have two categories of causes to consider: (1) those having occurred in the past, leading to those occurring in the present, and (2) those occurring here and now in the present. In both cases, cause and effect must be simultaneous. The former are, indeed, preparatory to the latter, and it is true that the latter cannot occur unless the former have in the past. The preparatory changes do indeed create the “disposition” for the changes, and for the “stable being,” which exists in the present – but they **do not **cause them to be or become in the present.

Again, Adam and Eve’s procreative activities were preparatory for, and a necessary condition for, our existence in the present, but they did not cause our present existence in the past, nor are they the cause of our present existence in the present.

 

[nkbeth]

I really hate to confuse things already otherwise well-expressed, but I must try to clarify what I am saying.

I think I’m less confused about some things, but possibly more confused about others!

… The change or motion of which St. Thomas speaks in the First Way, belongs both to the accidental and substantial orders – and that nearly infinitely more changes or comings-to-be occur in the accidental order than do in the substantial order.
…
Still, the coming-to-be of these changes are the proper subject matter of the First Way.

This makes more sense of changes in “the states of things” that we observe in the world. Many of the changes are accidental, such as the positions of the cue balls, or the quantity of the wood.​

You speak of:
“the coming-to-be of changes”
“the existence of the motion”

I see that change itself (coming to be) must be caused.
So, is “coming to be” is a kind of being?
Then, does “coming to be” “come to be”, caused by God over our time rather than simultaneously?

// from earlier post
If you are talking about a genuine “cause,” you are talking about an extrinsic sufficient reason for an effect. And effect is any being whose sufficient reason for being is not entirely within itself. By definition, an effect cannot exist without a cause here and now accounting for its existence or mode of existence. Something can be an effect in either the accidental or substantial order. But in both cases, this means that it has some aspect of its existence which it fails to account for by its very own nature. The only Being whose nature CAN account for its very existence is God, in whom nature (or essence) is identical with existence itself. That is, God exists by His own nature. Ego sum qui sum. I am Who am. All creatures receive existence from God as a perfection superadded to their natures, and in virtue of which their natures have actual existence.

// Back to your last post:
The thrust of the First Way is to show that any change whatever entails the coming-to-be of “new existence” which needs an adequate cause, and that the Sole Adequate Cause of all such “new existence” cannot be anything already existing in the finite order, since all finite beings are “finite” precisely in that they are limited to the existential perfections which they already possess. If anything is genuinely “new” in the finite order, then it needs, ultimately, to have a Source which is entirely transcendent to the finite order.

---

An effect is a being whose sufficient reason for its being or becoming isn’t totally within itself. A cause is simply an extrinsic sufficient reason
.

Is any cause other then God most properly called an “extrinsic sufficient cause” for any effect? Is “adequate” different than “sufficient”? …By a “genuine” cause do you mean God, since only He is really an “extrinsic sufficient cause” of any effect?

Are causes other than God sufficient in some sense even if not ultimately and absolutely?

Thus, we have two categories of causes to consider: (1) those having occurred in the past, leading to those occurring in the present, and (2) those occurring here and now in the present. In both cases, cause and effect must be simultaneous. The former are, indeed, preparatory to the latter, and it is true that the latter cannot occur unless the former have in the past. The preparatory changes do indeed create the “disposition” for the changes, and for the “stable being,” which exists in the present – but they **do not **cause them to be or become in the present.

Again, Adam and Eve’s procreative activities were preparatory for, and a necessary condition for, our existence in the present, but they did not cause our present existence in the past, nor are they the cause of our present existence in the present.

How are preparatory “causes” having occurred in the past… simultaneous with effects in the present? I.e. what do you mean by “In both cases, cause and effect must be simultaneous.”

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Dr. Bonnette and Daniel,

I have reviewed both of your responses and have reached the conclusion that we are off on a tangent. The discussion really reached a conclusion with Dr. Bonette’s post #106 and my two-post response to it. I have read all your subsequent responses regarding the meaning of causes and effects from Aquinas’s prospective, including Daniel’s suggested sidestep to another thread, Although I can never aspire to obtain anywhere near the depth of comprehensive of the Angelic Doctor’s metaphysics as both of you already possess, I still maintain that my proof does answer any objections one could make in regard to its being in conflict with Church teaching.

From Dr. Bonette (#106):

“The Catholic Church teaches that God’s existence can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason (Vatican I, Denziger 1806), and that this is done formally by reasoning “from the things that He has made” in terms of the kind of causal arguments made by St. Thomas Aquinas”

My proof infers a Creator by (arguably) proving that the reality we inhabit is indeed a creation. A creation necessities a creator.

From the same post by Dr. Bonnette:

“I posted earlier explaining the crucial role of simultaneity in St. Thomas’ Five Ways because they simply do not work unless causality in them is understood as absolutely simultaneous.”

Indeed, my proof points to the absolute simultaneity of everything because it invokes a static “block universe.” What is static is spacetime, including all energy and matter within it… Our consciousnesses (souls?) are not. At every moment we are conscious of that self-contained, frozen moment (observation) of spacetime which include memories and records but not certain knowledge of that which we call the future. Built into these now static moments are the effects of relativity. Therefore, in the first order, the reality we are conscious of, we have the relativity of simultaneity. However, as I also said, from outside our dimension of reality, our Creator does observe the absoluteness of simultaneity including simultaneously observing beings in our dimension of reality observing the relativity of simultaneity.

Again:

“There is no problem in saying that there is no simultaneity for observers in the physical world – as far as they can make observations. That is a statement of epistemological limitations. But to say that there is no simultaneity in itself would be a metaphysical statement which goes beyond the competence of observational physics.”

As I said, I agree. I am offering a *second order *notion of simultaneity per my above response.

In regard to the esoteric discussion of what causes and effects are in Aquinas’s terminology, it seems to me that to say that causes of being are simultaneous with their effects is merely to state that: “A + B = C”; that is, the interaction of two (or more) efficient causes simultaneously results in its effect. Thus, for every currently existing thing we can say that he, she or it is one of an ongoing series of effects resulting from changing causes from every now to the next; at each moment simultaneously with his, her or its cause.

Now, what I believe has caused confusion within my mind, and perhaps that of others, is that I have been thinking of what your refer to as “preparatory” (and I previously as “antecedent” ) causes of coming to be, removed from the immediate causes of events, as being the same as efficient causes. As Dr. Bonette points out, Adam’s and Eve’s intercourse was a necessary condition for our existences but is not the cause of our existences in the present (or the past). What I think he means is that because they could have had relations with each other without engendering the end result of the existence of any one of us, they are not actually our causes. Our grandparents might not have ever met, yet Adam still would have known Eve and then raised Cain. (Er, old joke.)

Fine. But Adam and Eve were still necessary conditions in the past for us to be reading here today. They could not have been if they always existed simultaneously with us and all our progenitors going back to them. Yet, that is what Murkowski’s interpretation of Einstein’s STR tells us. Therefore, there must have been a higher dimension of time in which all was created sequentially, a necessary condition for causes of coming to be (as I believe I now understand your line of reasoning), and when our Creator was finished, our dimension of reality became static like a work of art or a novel.

All of Aquinas’s arguments might well be valid, but only in regard to the original creative processes of God within the higher dimension of reality in which He exists and created all.

 

[JDaniel]

I think I’m less confused about some things, but possibly more confused about others!

This makes more sense of changes in “the states of things” that we observe in the world. Many of the changes are accidental, such as the positions of the cue balls, or the quantity of the wood.​

You speak of:
“the coming-to-be of changes”
“the existence of the motion”

I see that change itself (coming to be) must be caused.
So, is “coming to be” is a kind of being?
Then, does “coming to be” “come to be”, caused by God over our time rather than simultaneously?

OK. Let’s take a breath. We’re over-thinking this a bit too much. If you will allow me, I’d like to propose a scenario to you: I am about to hit a baseball with a bat. Now, to us the entire action consists of a person throwing a ball with his arm and, at a certain point, the ball is released from his hand. The ball flies to the vicinity of me and my bat, whereupon I swing the bat in contemplation of hitting the ball. Momentarily, I discover that I am lucky and have, in fact, hit the ball which flies off in an opposite direction from whence it was originally coming. Now, we look at all of this and it appears to be the simple cause-effect sequence that actually occurred. But, is it?

On a further inspection, I realize that the cause-effect action was concurrent with the instantaneous connection of the ball and the baseball bat, and realize that this is the real act of causation. All the rest is lead-up to this point. So, upon abstracting the action at the point of contact of the bat and ball, my mind must immobilize the motion, perceive the parts of the motion and grasp how it works. Thus, I immobilize the ball, the bat, the compression of the ball, and the compression of the bat (if any), in other words, my mind has immobilized the moment-of-action at the precise moment when change first began.

If I dissect the action, I discover that at that precise nano-second, the bat contacted the ball[SUP]1[/SUP] - the ball compressed (to some degree) [SUP]2[/SUP] - the bat surged through the the ball [SUP]3[/SUP] - the bat-surge stopped the ball in mid-flight [SUP]4[/SUP] - the ball changed direction and flew in that new direction [SUP]5[/SUP]. However, these 5 steps are insufficient to explain the entire moment of cause-effect, which is the first moment that change begins-ends. Without going into an incredible spillover of words, instead I will say that the matter (material cause) of the ball was instantly disposed to permit the new perfection of the direction change; the bat was instantly disposed to be the efficient cause of effecting the change of direction; and the ball, in motion in a direction it did not have before, is the formal cause, the ball traveling in a new direction.

In summary, the old form (the original direction of flight) is to go out of existence in the motion which has adjoined to it the privation of the new form (the new flight direction), and at the very moment of impact, the old form disappears, the new form appears and the (various) efficient cause (or causes) are no longer acting. It all takes place at the same moment. Think, for a moment: isn’t this really the precise change? Doesn’t it all take place at the same instant? All the before and after, while important, are not the moment of actual change, right?

Now, what about the whole thing about the pitcher throwing the ball, and me winding up to take a swing at it and, at some point, actually swinging at it. These are other cause-effect events, BUT, not the proper efficient cause (or causes) of the motion that is at the center of this discussion, which is only present at the moment of the coming to be of the new change of direction of the baseball. Each instant of the entire activity is, in essence, a new cause-effect.

At each moment after the ball is set in motion by the pitcher (and, even before that, as the pitcher winds up and throws) the ball is undergoing a temporal sequence of changes - at each nano-second-Now in the ball’s trajectory. Now, the next temporal sequence of motions is the guy with the bat. Each nano-second-Now in the bat’s swing-trajectory is a complete action-of-change. The compression of the medium (the air) is another set of changes at each moment whence the medium is compressed.

Does this make a little more sense? You can’t just look at the (big) macro-picture. You can’t just look at the ball flying off in a new direction. That’s a major “change-event”, in this historical account of millions of changes, but it is only one of millions of change events which consist in the whole macro-set-of-motions.

Dr. Bonnette wrote, in a recent post, that the majority of causes are accidental efficient causes. The foregoing is an example of accidental efficient causality. You can see why the accidental variety comprise the largest group of efficient causes.

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

Continuation…

Is any cause other then God most properly called an “extrinsic sufficient cause” for any effect? Is “adequate” different than “sufficient”? …By a “genuine” cause do you mean God, since only He is really an “extrinsic sufficient cause” of any effect?

While “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” are words commonly used in descriptions of efficient causes, they are merely for the purpose of refining the understanding of the various causes. The material cause and the formal cause are the two examples of intrinsic causes, while the efficient and the formal causes are the two examples of extrinsic causes. Why? Because the matter and the form are left in the effect, they are called intrinsic. And, because the efficient cause and the formal cause are exterior to the effect, they are called extrinsic. So, they are words to better define the four causes.

“Sufficiency” is a term used to describe whether or not a certain efficient cause is enough to actually cause the change. “Adequate” is probably synonymous with “sufficient”.

How are preparatory “causes” having occurred in the past… simultaneous with effects in the present? I.e. what do you mean by “In both cases, cause and effect must be simultaneous.”

There are four types of efficient causes. They are: (1) the perfecting efficient cause. It is defined as an efficient cause that brings a substantial form into existence after other efficient causes have prepared the way for such existence by suitably disposing the matter. (2) The preparatory efficient cause which disposes the matter for its ultimate term. (3) The instrumental efficient cause, which works subordinated to a cause other than itself, such as a hammer to a carpenter. And, (4) the counseling efficient cause, which only works among people, where one person might propose something to another person so as to get the other person to act.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

OK. Let’s take a breath. We’re over-thinking this a bit too much. If you will allow me, I’d like to propose a scenario to you: I am about to hit a baseball with a bat. Now, to us the entire action consists of a person throwing a ball with his arm and, at a certain point, the ball is released from his hand. The ball flies to the vicinity of me and my bat, whereupon I swing the bat in contemplation of hitting the ball. Momentarily, I discover that I am lucky and have, in fact, hit the ball which flies off in an opposite direction from whence it was originally coming. Now, we look at all of this and it appears to be the simple cause-effect sequence that actually occurred. But, is it?

On a further inspection, I realize that the cause-effect action was concurrent with the instantaneous connection of the ball and the baseball bat, and realize that this is the real act of causation. All the rest is lead-up to this point. So, upon abstracting the action at the point of contact of the bat and ball, my mind must immobilize the motion, perceive the parts of the motion and grasp how it works. Thus, I immobilize the ball, the bat, the compression of the ball, and the compression of the bat (if any), in other words, my mind has immobilized the moment-of-action at the precise moment when change first began.

If I dissect the action, I discover that at that precise nano-second, the bat contacted the ball[SUP]1[/SUP] - the ball compressed (to some degree) [SUP]2[/SUP] - the bat surged through the the ball [SUP]3[/SUP] - the bat-surge stopped the ball in mid-flight [SUP]4[/SUP] - the ball changed direction and flew in that new direction [SUP]5[/SUP]. However, these 5 steps are insufficient to explain the entire moment of cause-effect, which is the first moment that change begins-ends. Without going into an incredible spillover of words, instead I will say that the matter (material cause) of the ball was instantly disposed to permit the new perfection of the direction change; the bat was instantly disposed to be the efficient cause of effecting the change of direction; and the ball, in motion in a direction it did not have before, is the formal cause, the ball traveling in a new direction.

In summary, the old form (the original direction of flight) is to go out of existence in the motion which has adjoined to it the privation of the new form (the new flight direction), and at the very moment of impact, the old form disappears, the new form appears and the (various) efficient cause (or causes) are no longer acting. It all takes place at the same moment. Think, for a moment: isn’t this really the precise change? Doesn’t it all take place at the same instant? All the before and after, while important, are not the moment of actual change, right?

Now, what about the whole thing about the pitcher throwing the ball, and me winding up to take a swing at it and, at some point, actually swinging at it. These are other cause-effect events, BUT, not the proper efficient cause (or causes) of the motion that is at the center of this discussion, which is only present at the moment of the coming to be of the new change of direction of the baseball. Each instant of the entire activity is, in essence, a new cause-effect.

At each moment after the ball is set in motion by the pitcher (and, even before that, as the pitcher winds up and throws) the ball is undergoing a temporal sequence of changes - at each nano-second-Now in the ball’s trajectory. Now, the next temporal sequence of motions is the guy with the bat. Each nano-second-Now in the bat’s swing-trajectory is a complete action-of-change. The compression of the medium (the air) is another set of changes at each moment whence the medium is compressed.

Does this make a little more sense? You can’t just look at the (big) macro-picture. You can’t just look at the ball flying off in a new direction. That’s a major “change-event”, in this historical account of millions of changes, but it is only one of millions of change events which consist in the whole macro-set-of-motions.

Dr. Bonnette wrote, in a recent post, that the majority of causes are accidental efficient causes. The foregoing is an example of accidental efficient causality. You can see why the accidental variety comprise the largest group of efficient causes.

continued…

 

[nkbeth]

Dr. Bonnette,

Maybe this has already been thrashed out, but here goes anyway.

Dear Don,
…

I would point out that when you talk about the causes antecedent to, say, the flame under the finger, we must distinguish between causes of becoming and causes of being. The causes which appear antecedent are causes of coming-to-be – and they are simultaneous with their effects in their own order. The causes, such as the flame under the finger, which are simultaneous in the present order may be viewed as causes of being.

Why do you say that causes of coming-to-be only appear antecedent?

Are all “causes of coming to be” preparatory causes, such as getting out the match might be preparatory to lighting it ?

When you say “causes of coming-to-be – are simultaneous with their effects in their own order” do you mean they are simultaneous with direct earlier effects?

 

[nkbeth]

Don & Dr. Bonnette,
Don Schneider:

It was the author who created the logic of the scenario within the novel on a sequential basis. When the novel was completed it became static, but to the characters within it, it appears dynamic because it had been at the time the author was writing it.

From God’s vantage point their is no “when”. He created the story and He created new characters and their “time”, and the characters lived it - all in His eternal “Now”. There is not HIS private NOW (“during” which He creates a dynamic story which then becomes static) and His shared NOW (in which the characters live the static stary but observe the dynamic story). He wrote a story full of of living, moving creatures and (in our time) He continues to write it.

I’m not as brilliant or educated as either of you but this is part of my point of view.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear nkbeth,

“Why do you say that causes of coming-to-be only appear antecedent?”

JDaniel has graphically and well depicted the incredible complexity entailed in trying to explain how cause and effect are genuinely simultaneous when you view a simple example such as a bat hitting a ball. The prior causality which prepares the way for the present event (what JDaniel has correctly called “preparatory” causes) “appears” antecedent to the present event, but it WAS actually simultaneous with the effects it was producing as it prepared or disposed matter for that which now is in the present before us.
*
“Are all “causes of coming to be” preparatory causes, such as getting out the match might be preparatory to lighting it ?*”

A cause of coming-to-be is simply a cause of motion. Do not confuse “coming-to-be” with all past events, even though many past events entail coming-to-be. It is the subject matter of the First Way, that is, motion. Motion is being which is here and now being progressively actualized. Motion is defined as the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency. Both in the present and in the past you will find causes of being and causes of becoming. Perhaps you could say that causes of being continuously cause the existence of the effect produced, whereas causes of becoming (coming-to-be) progressively augment or alter the state of being of that which already is. Thus, “getting out the match,” since it entails an action of reaching into one’s pocket and bringing out the match, is an instance of becoming which is also a preparation for the act of lighting it. Insofar as any cause of becoming is necessarily ordered toward the final goal or state of being which is finally to be actualized, it are always a preparation for attaining the final goal of that becoming, and hence, a “preparatory” cause. But not all preparatory causes need be merely causes of becoming, since, at the time of their causing, they might have been causes of being, not merely causes of becoming, in their own order.

“When you say “causes of coming-to-be – are simultaneous with their effects in their own order” do you mean they are simultaneous with direct earlier effects?”

Yes.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear nkbeth,

You write: *“From God’s vantage point there is no “when”. He created the story and He created new characters and their “time”, and the characters lived it - all in His eternal “Now”. There is not HIS private NOW (“during” which He creates a dynamic story which then becomes static) and His shared NOW (in which the characters live the static story but observe the dynamic story). He wrote a story full of of living, moving creatures and (in our time) He continues to write it.”
*

Your depiction sounds good to me.

God is the Eternal Now. Eternity is the simultaneous and complete possession of infinite life. God is simply outside of time. He creates time as he creates creatures living in time. The mystery of St. Thomas’ understanding of predestination is that God knows from all eternity (standing outside of time) what each and every creature will do throughout its existence, but that the free creatures freely determine their own outcomes. The outcome of creation is not written ahead of time in the sense that we are victims of a Calvinistic predestination and predetermination in which we cannot freely determine our own outcomes. Thus, creation is a living story constantly creating its own scenario, but not escaping God’s eternal knowledge and simultaneous creation – nor escaping the omnipresence of divine providence for each and every creature, with natural physical agents acting deterministically and spiritual agents determined to act freely in the pursuit of their own ends.

Yes, only an infinite God can accomplish all this simultaneously. (Note that even the term “simultaneous” is anthropomorphic, since it is signified in terms proper to our existence and understanding, not His. It means "at the same time, " but God is utterly outside of time.) The topic of divine providence is an entirely distinct topic, treated by St. Thomas as an extensive subject in his Summa theologiae.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Don & Dr. Bonnette,

From God’s vantage point their is no “when”. He created the story and He created new characters and their “time”, and the characters lived it - all in His eternal “Now”. There is not HIS private NOW (“during” which He creates a dynamic story which then becomes static) and His shared NOW (in which the characters live the static stary but observe the dynamic story). He wrote a story full of of living, moving creatures and (in our time) He continues to write it.

I’m not as brilliant or educated as either of you but this is part of my point of view.

Dear NK,

Thank you for including me in your perception of what constitutes brilliance and erudition in association with Dr. Bonnette, but I’m afraid I am not deserving of such an accolade.

From reading your notes, I believe that you and I are two peas in the proverbial pods as we think along identical lines. We are both intelligent laymen but not professional theologians with doctorates as are Dr. Bonnette and possibly Daniel. (I don’t know what Daniel’s educational background is but he appears to be in the same exalted intellectual and educational league as Dr. Bonnette.)

I believe I now understand Dr. Bonnette’s and Daniel’s explanation of causes and effects in Aquinas’s theological and philosophical framework as best as I am able or ever will be able.

Preparatory causes existed simultaneously with their effects when they acted as efficient causes in past moments. They cannot be held to be efficient causes of present effects because they did not necessitate the coming to be of a present effect. Thus, causes removed in time are preparatory in the present but efficient in the past.

As I said, Adam’s and Eve’s relations were a necessary preparatory cause for our existences but their intimacy did not cause our existences as it did our distant forbearer Seth. Because Seth came to be did not *compel *our existences, neither at the moment of our conceptions nor at the present moment. (That would be all the necessities of maintaining our present biological forms, such as oxygen.)

What I have been getting at is that according to STR and Minkowski, all these events are now static (frozen and timeless) and all *coexist *as such. However, in order for a preparatory cause to have been a necessary condition for an effect (of other efficient causes) later on, there would have to exist a “later on” relative to a past time. In other words, there would have to have been a moment in time when a preparatory cause did exist but that its distant effect did not yet exist.

Therefore, I believe that Aquinas’s scheme works perfectly, only in God’s dimension of reality when His creation was actually being formed through His initial impetus of first motion. It is only from within the now static creation that it might appear to be questioned due to the epistemological limitations of which Dr. Bonnette has previously spoken. We cannot directly access God’s domain, His dimension of reality. Therefore, we cannot observe matters as He can in His in an absolute sense.

 

[nkbeth]

JDaniel (and Dr. Bonnette)

I asked:

Is any cause other then God most properly called an “extrinsic sufficient cause” for any effect? Is “adequate” different than “sufficient”? …By a “genuine” cause do you mean God, since only He is really an “extrinsic sufficient cause” of any effect?

Are causes other than God sufficient in some sense even if not ultimately and absolutely?

You responded:

Continuation…
…
While “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” are words commonly used in descriptions of efficient causes, they are merely for the purpose of refining the understanding of the various causes.

“Sufficiency” is a term used to describe whether or not a certain efficient cause is enough to actually cause the change. “Adequate” is probably synonymous with “sufficient”.

I didn’t make my first question clear. I wasn’t looking for a description of extrinsic vs. intrinsic or even of sufficiency. (But your descriptions were very good).

Dr. Bonette (quoted earlier in my post) said that God is the Sole Adequate Cause of new existence. I understand that (well enough for here).

But earlier he also says “An effect is a being whose sufficient reason for its being or becoming isn’t totally within itself” * and “A cause is simply an extrinsic sufficient reason”.

My question is, if God is the Sole Adequate Cause of new existence, isn’t HE also the Sole Sufficient Reason of new existence as well? If so, in what sense are other causes described as (extrinsic) sufficient reasons"?*

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear nkbeth,

You wrote:
*
“My question is, if God is the Sole Adequate Cause of new existence, isn’t HE also the Sole Sufficient Reason of new existence as well? If so, in what sense are other causes described as (extrinsic) sufficient reasons?”*

That is an incisive and SPLENDID question.

God is, indeed, the sole adequate cause for “new existence,” and also the sole sufficient reason of “new existence” as well. But God gives to creatures their finite natures which exert genuine secondary causality – and thus function as extrinsic reasons in their own order of nature. Gilson makes this point. God’s power is manifested in an even more perfect manner when he creates finite beings which can actually participate in real causality. The “new existence” which is produced when they act, as when I hit a ball and make it move, ultimately originates in God. But He enables that act whereby that new perfection comes to be to be truly MY act, since I am the agent who hits the ball. MY nature is that of a “hitter” with certain limited strength and directional control which affects and effects how that “new existence” is manifested.

Thus, God and creature conjointly produce new effects in the world. He is the ultimate source and power behind the new existence manifested each and every time a creature acts, but the acts of the creature truly belong to its own nature, since it is in and through this particular finite agent that the “new existence” is realized. The creature is the immediate agent of the production of such effects, and its finite nature specifies and determines what kind of acts or effects occur. That is why we come to know the natures of things through the activities they perform and the ends their acts attain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

has anyone discussed copleston on aquinas yet?

 

[budgie2]

I have said on another link about Aquinas and the Trinity that my proof of God is in nature aswell as divine revelation. God is in the three states of matter, the three primary colours in light, the three primary colours in art, the three dimensions of objects, the past, present, future of time. Somebody has said something about God being in language I-me-you but this doesn’t make sense to me as “I” and “me” are the same. I’m sure God is in language aswell.

This is my theology on the Trinity. God the Father is represented by solid, God the Son by liquid although there are certain aspects of solid about him too, and God the Holy Spirit by gas. The Holy Spirit is the oxygen of the soul and we breathe in the Holy Spirit.

For scientific proof, the atoms of a solid do not move a lot and do not have a lot of energy, the atoms of a liquid have more energy but they stay together and do not expand over a large surface area, the atoms of a gas are the fastest and they can move great distance. God the Father is pretty static, God the Son is a mover and shaker across a small surface area, but God the Holy Spirit is the greatest mover and shaker over a larger surface area.