Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism

[Neo-Scholastic]

…scholastic reasoning is no longer helpful but actually impedes on the fact that we can dig deeper into what triggers intelligent beings to action and discover a multitude of mechanical causes that have nothing to do with intention.

Is it your hope to remove intention entirely so that we can go about our lives like spring driven toys?

Care to elaborate on what you mean by "actions of the whole occur simultaneously?"

To say that a wood chucker chucks wood describes the action of a whole system. The whole system can be broken down into the concurrent actions of multiple sub-systems: muscles pulling on tendons, electrolytes crossing cell barriers, etc. The intentions of the wood chucker is the reason that motivates the actions of the sub-systems. The bottom-up way of looking at it is that the intention of the wood chucker is an inert illusion generated by the collective action of the sub-systems.

People call it mere assertion because your metaphysical demonstration provides no testable results and it makes no predictions on future observation.

Philosophy provides the foundational principles on which scientific inquiry depends.

Esqilax, you make me laugh, literally. Let’s take a closer look at what you call my assersions:
Final cause is always at play because there are no undirected actions;… I supported this statement earlier in the post by referring to an empirically verifiable fact. That fact is this: barring any impeding circumstances, particular efficient causes always produce the same specific ends. It is not necessary to show that it is possible to be otherwise, since this is not speculation, but an observation of how things work in reality.
Bottom-up causality doesn’t have a principle for directing actions at any level. If that statement is false then you should have no difficulty supplying such a principle. In actually, a principle acting from the bottom-up has already been excluded by its proponents that say mechanical actions suffice and that intentionality is an illusion.
Harmonious action does not provide a link between the parallel streams of intention and determined ends. Here I call out harmonious action as the unfounded assertion by claiming that intentions always but without reason match actions.