Kalam

[Angrboda]

'Spose it cannot be helped given the specialized nomenclature of the Scholastics. That said, I do believe in classical philosophy causality is more about quiddity than temporal arrangements....formal cause, for example, is a cause with no temporal aspect. That said, the common classical examples of efficient cause happen to be temporal in nature but IMHO not necessarily so.

This seems to be the main sticking point with talking about causality in Aristotle/Thomas. People are just unwilling to grasp the difference in the way the terms are used.

And Thomists cling to semantic arguments such as yours as if they actually met the objection they supposedly respond to when in fact they do not. Aquinas' argument wasn't about formal causes, and even with the Thomism fully taken on board, temporality isn't forgotten or mooted. A reply, if it is to be anything other than a non sequitur, has to function as a defeater for the argument. Neither you nor Neo's replies do that. The problem is not that Thomism eludes us; it's that Thomism fails as a cogent response.