Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism

[Neo-Scholastic]

It could be the case that some stuff pertaining to the universe are unchanging. So the universe is not wholly changing but only partially changing.

Substitute reality for universe and I agree.

Psychological causes can't be taken as a given since final cause doesn't only mean psychological.

Very true. Psychological events are just one kind of event with determinate ends.

Final cause is actually very simple to understand. It is the principle that says that baring external interference, like circumstances always produce the same result. For example, white light shining through a prism always produces a spectrum and not “Citizen Kane”. Final cause is the empirically verifiable corollary of efficient cause.

Where final cause becomes important, as in the Fifth Way, is when we compare things that have intelligence, like animals, and things that do not, like billiard balls. We can explain the behavior of a cheetah in terms of its intentions, like its attempt to catch a zebra. The cheetah’s hunt is the efficient cause of the zebra’s death. The zebra’s death is the final cause of the cheetah’s hunt. In like manner, the cue’s strike is the efficient cause of the billiard dropping into a pocket, while dropping into a pocket is the final cause of the cue’s strike. Anyone can see that the actions of the cue and billiard ball can be traced back to an intelligent agent, the pool player.

But what about things that appear to happen with consistency seemingly apart from an intelligent agent, like the formation of a spectrum from light going through a prism? Doesn’t that show that the actions of an intelligent agent supervene on the collective action of undirected actions? The answer is no. Final cause is always at play because there are no undirected actions; particular efficient causes are always directed toward specific determined ends. Since the actions of the whole occur simultaneously we are presented with three possible interpretations: bottom-up causation, top-down causation, or harmonious action. Both the bottom-up and harmonious action interpretations have paradoxical results. Bottom-up causality doesn’t have a principle for directing actions at any level. Harmonious action does not provide a link between the parallel streams of intention and determined ends. What remains is top-down causality wherein intelligence operates at all levels of reality.

Anyone that calls this mere assertion only does so because they do not like the result and not any flaw in the demonstration.