RE: Kalam
December 1, 2022 at 11:30 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2022 at 11:34 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(December 1, 2022 at 10:34 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(December 1, 2022 at 8:50 am)Angrboda Wrote: 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.
Help me out here. What would be an example of an accidental relationship (or mere coexistence, if you prefer), as opposed to Bel’s example of hydrogen and its relationship to the sun?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
