Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aquinas's doctrine of instrumental causation holds that secondary causes genuinely produce effects proper to their nature, not merely metaphorically.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If God sustains all being moment-to-moment, secondary causation may be metaphysically reducible to divine action regardless of nominalism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between genuine and metaphorical causation is unclear when God's primary causation could fully explain all effects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Secondary causes exhibit consistent causal powers matching their nature (fire burns, eyes see), not arbitrary divine action.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Real causal powers in creatures preserve divine omnipotence through instrumental mediation, avoiding occasionalism's denial of creaturely agency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scripture and observation both affirm creatures act according to their kinds, suggesting genuine rather than merely apparent causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.