Strawdusty,

Actually, there is simultaneous causation, as pointed out by different people here. Saying it's all just "corners of remaining ignorance in modern physics" is not really a plausible response to the examples given.

But anyway, as I pointed out, simultaneity is just a good illustration for the notion of causal dependence or instrumentality. The whole thing flies over your head because you're focusing only on the illustration and not the metaphysical principle that actually makes sense of reality. Tell me, do we depend on oxygen to exist? Yes or no? If a hand stops moving a stick moving a stone, will the stone continue moving, yes or no? I am not asking if there is any immediate or precise simultaneity in the examples given, or if the stone will immediately stop moving the very moment the hand stops moving the stick; these details are actually of secondary importance to what I am asking. I am merely pointing out that the causal chain in question depends on the hand.

You can even understand it all in a "time bomb" type of way. If oxygen disappeared now, we would eventually die because we won't be able to breathe anymore. If your brain disappeared right now, you would not be able to continue shitting nonsense all over the thread anymore. If the hand stopped moving the stick moving the stone, the stone would stop moving. These all illustrate the concept of dependence, and are for this reason what we call "essentially ordered series of causes", or "hierarchical series". That's what the first and second ways are all about, your diatribe about linear motion and high school physics doesn't change anything about the fact that hierarchical series are real in the sense I mentioned. What Aquinas then points out is that the conjoining of an act of existence with an essence is something that needs to be actualized continuously, not necessarily because of temporal simultaneity, but because whatever is a mixture of potency/act doesn't really have act by itself, and whatever is a distinct mixture of essence/existence does not have existence by itself.

So if anything, anything, changes or exists at all, the only real cause for the change or the act of existence would be a being that is Pure Act, or whose essence just is Existence, otherwise we'd be explaining dependence by further dependence. Even if this goes on ad infinitum, if NONE of the causes actually has the capacity to actualize potency by themselves, or to have the act of existence by themselves, then nothing is being explained and also there couldn't be any change or any existence at all, because there would not actually be anything that is really able to get all this shit running. An infinite series of moons reflecting light is not sufficient to cause the light or explain its presence there; there has to be the sun somewhere along the line, there has to be a real SOURCE of light there. An infinite series of traincarts pulling each other would not be sufficient for the carts to move, there would have to be an engine at the front (and probably some machinist with a depressing and low-paying job there as well). That's all. The whole point is ontological, not temporal. Whether or not there is temporal simultaneity is of secondary importance.

And if you still don't understand or accept any of it, that's all on you then. I find the act/potency and essence/existence distinctions more obviously true than pretty much anything discussed in advanced physics today. Certain metaphysical facts will always be more evident than physical or natural scientific ones; for instance, that something exists instead of nothing, that things change, that things are different from others but some are similar to others in some respects, that there are essences, etc.

Miguel.  Regarding #131.  I'd look for a new barber if I were you.

@grod #129

SP"Zero as an expression of time during which a real change occurs is an abstraction, a mathematical approximation of convenience, and merely a statement reflecting the corners of remaining ignorance in modern physics."

"So when I mention actual, real physics -- you know the one you are completely ignorant of, being an illiterate, ignorant buffoon -- it is suddenly "merely a statement reflecting the corners of remaining ignorance in modern physics"? Nice double standard you have there, science-denier."
--There are no scientific authorities.

The term "point-like" is just a placeholder in recognition of the incompleteness of presently available scientific models.  When a model produces infinities that is a problem.  A technique called renormalization can be applied to that problem.  If an object with mass is a mathematical point its density is infinite and angular momentum is impossible.  Surely our great "Portuguese mathematical physicist PhD" understands these pedestrian facts, right?

SP"You cannot, and have not identified any error in my clear refutations of the first and second ways."

""cannot"? You are just pathetic."
--That response is evidence of my assertion.

"Your "specific errors" do not even amount to a coherent objection and have all been responded, numerous times by numerous people. The fact that you cannot recognize them is a fact about yourself, not about the arguments."
--More evidence of my assertion.

"And *now* I am really done here, no point in humiliating you even more. You have the last word."
--Still more evidence of my assertion.

As typical, your last post is an argument free post. 

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Thus you provide a clear example of my assertion.  You only call me an idiot, offering no logical refutation to my arguments.

Thus, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.
 

Well, that's true, I can't offer any logical refutation to your arguments, neither can they be refuted : they're absurd. As an absurd claim make no claims, there's no content to refute. You're basically repeating the same thing over and over again.

And, since you're being pedantic, I didn't call you an idiot. The fact you read the idiom and applied it to yourself is your fault, not mine.

I still stand by my post : you're making no argued claim. There is nothing to refute, for it's either vacuous or incoherent. So yes, if you want to say that you can't be refuted, it suits me.

I'll just add something that I felt reading the numerous times you called us names and you acted like an ultramoron : passer pour un idiot aux yeux d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet. It's a quote by Georges Courteline, which, I think, pretty sums up the initial impression I had of yours. You're not interested finding what's right, you're interested in being told you're right. That won't happen, for truth is not a magical claim you can stick freely on what you say.

Good life to you, Sir.