Kalam

[Angrboda]

But the simultaneous existence of things, under Thomism, is not causation but simply coexistence.

The way I see it, under Thomism, a cause is based on an essential relationship. If the relationship is accidental then it would be, as you say, simply coexistence. Early in this thread @Belacqua accurately described this critical essential/accidental distinction in Scholatic nomenclature.

Your interpretation of Thomism is different that ours. I do not think the dispute rises to the level that justifies accusations of ignorance.

I believe that is because you do not understand the dispute. I do not think we are operating from different interpretations at all. But indulge me, and describe an example of such an essential relationship so we can analyze the issue rationally instead of continuing to shout from our respective hilltops. I think that you are going to find that no such essential relationships exist. But I'm willing to entertain an attempt on your part to show otherwise. I've made this point twice in this thread and all I got in return was a deafening silence. We can make no progress as long as you and Bel are content to conclude that we simply do not understand Thomism as well as you do and that once properly understood then all the ducks fall in a row. That's arrogant assumption, not reasoned discussion.