Religion III

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, I'm interpreting that. Are you asking because Scripture tells us or are you asking because scripture doesn't? If the latter, then your question is based on the silence of scripture.



Whatever is it that you think you need to do, do it already without further delay; for you never know what the next minute holds in store for you.

Sure, I get you now. It is the absence of information in places. I've said in other posts that there's a lot of good in the Bible. Not stealing or committing murder is a pretty good start. But sometimes it seems like the Bible is happy to leave us with a puzzle. Why did some groups think Cain was black and Abel white? They had the same two parents, each with a set of genes.

If the flood split Pangea into separate continents, why is that not in the Bible? Not that Noah or whoever wrote that part of Genesis would know anything about other continents.

So yes, there are holes that make me wonder. Silence leaves room for interpretation. Interpretation leads to debate. We could fill all the space in the Sears Tower with the work in cosmology, biology, geomorphology, or weather and climate (I taught introductory college level courses in the latter two subjects). All you have is a book which often leaves you in the position of saying, well if God wanted to, he could put an ocean in the sky. Think about something science understands that the Bible didn't explain. Gravity for example. That's how "God made it" works for you, but why would anyone who understands the science behind gravity discard their knowledge?
_________________________________
I volunteer to work with autistic children. We lease horses and teach the kids how to clean their hooves, groom them, and put the tack on. Then we put them on the horses and let them ride. One of us holds a lead in case something happens with the horse.

But I believe whatever is ahead is bigger than autistic kids and horses (which is highly satisfying by the way). I don't know what will happen but I know it's something that I won't have to go looking for. It will come.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Sure, I get you now. It is the absence of information in places. I've said in other posts that there's a lot of good in the Bible. Not stealing or committing murder is a pretty good start. But sometimes it seems like the Bible is happy to leave us with a puzzle. Why did some groups think Cain was black and Abel white? They had the same two parents, each with a set of genes.

I can't crawl into the heads of different groups.

If the flood split Pangea into separate continents, why is that not in the Bible? Not that Noah or whoever wrote that part of Genesis would know anything about other continents.

But the bible does speak to great seismic activity. Most of the flood water very likely came from beneath the earth.

So yes, there are holes that make me wonder. Silence leaves room for interpretation. Interpretation leads to debate. We could fill all the space in the Sears Tower with the work in cosmology, biology, geomorphology, or weather and climate (I taught introductory college level courses in the latter two subjects). All you have is a book which often leaves you in the position of saying, well if God wanted to, he could put an ocean in the sky. Think about something science understands that the Bible didn't explain. Gravity for example. That's how "God made it" works for you, but why would anyone who understands the science behind gravity discard their knowledge?

But the "holes" of which you speak are secondary issues. The bible is a book of spiritual truth; it's not a science textbook. It is revealing, though, that you have found no "holes" to the Gospel of the Kingdom. Not surprising, though, since many people are able to comprehend the gospel of saving grace and repent and trust Christ at a very early age in life. This speaks eloquently to the perspicuity of scripture.
_________________________________

I volunteer to work with autistic children. We lease horses and teach the kids how to clean their hooves, groom them, and put the tack on. Then we put them on the horses and let them ride. One of us holds a lead in case something happens with the horse.

That is a noble thing you do -- to try to bring some joy and meaning into people's lives. Kudos to you. But in doing this good work, keep also in mind what Paul taught in 1Cor 13:1-8.

But I believe whatever is ahead is bigger than autistic kids and horses (which is highly satisfying by the way). I don't know what will happen but I know it's something that I won't have to go looking for. It will come.

Read 2 Peter 3 and you will know what lies ahead. While it's true that you won't have to "go" looking for it, you nevertheless should stay vigilante, expecting the end of the age to come upon you at any moment like a thief in the night (Mat 24:42). Don't be as one of the five foolish virgins (Mat 25:1-13).

Now, as far as Cain goes, I would have to surmise that Cain married one of his sisters. Siblings marrying one another was probably very common early on in human history. In fact, why wouldn't you think even within the evolutionary scheme that siblings married in order to preserve the human race? The first prohibition against incestuous relationships is not found until the Law of Moses. Even Abraham married his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20).

Further, I have also deduced from scripture that conditions on earth in the postdiluvial age, contra the evolutionary doctrine of Uniformitarianism, were dramatically different than previously. Apparently, significant physiological changes occurred in man, as well, including, most likely, the degradation of the gene pool, much shorter lifespans, etc. A few examples: Abraham died at 175 years; Jacob his grandson died when he was 147 years old; King David died at the not-so-ripe age of 70, and only a few hundred years separated David from Jacob.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If that includes me, I quickly wearied of arguably legitimate metaphysical claims...

If A regularly causes B, but not C or D in nature, it is because there is something immanent within A that is directed to B. It could be stated that since the final cause of A is to produce B, there is a sense in which, in terms of goal-directed final causes (and not efficient causes), cause follows effect; and in nature, there are non-rational things that must receive their immanent causal power from an external agent (Mind, etc.). The alternative is to insist upon only efficient causation.

...being tagged with or understood as linear time for which, if I remember correctly, the original purpose was to justify some Lone Ranger Christian's fascination with Past-Present-Future as "God made time in his image". Classical theists regard God as First Cause, not as first in a linear chain, but first in principal, since only Pure Act has the immanent causal power to create from nothing, and thus is "causing" existence at any given moment.

How about discussing this in modern terms. Unless you are using these terms for our Lone Ranger.

Not using antiquated Aristotle or Aquinas fits better with modern thought. Various problems starting with "Final cause" can not be used in a causal chain unless we extract and have only a short term perspective. Nor is final cause goal directed without the use of teleology. Another conundrum

It is true humans are goal directed, but I have yet to see how boxcar's excerpt of DR. Feser supports a real effect preceding a cause that inherently produces it mentally. (Efficient causse?)

In the context of causality which was the root of the debate boxcar and I had, I brought up and boxcar denied .....

using the Causal arrow of time
A cause precedes its effect: the causal event occurs before the event it affects. Birth, for example, follows a successful conception and not vice versa. Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow.

Dr Feser is apparently conflating an imaginary or projected effect with a physical effect. Therefore drawing the premise that effect precedes cause mentally is bogus. I have yet to see Dr Feser postulating time running backwards mentallty. Looks like boxcar is back fitting Dr Feser into his time fantasies

As I have pointed out a number of times, a very detailed blueprint of a skyscraper, in fact thousands that are needed to construct it...... is not the actual final effect of the goal directed purpose of the Architect, his firm or the hundreds of sub designers. Yes it is highly developed and highly detailed but not the skyscraper itself

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

How about discussing this in modern terms. Unless you are using these terms for our Lone Ranger.

Not using antiquated Aristotle or Aquinas fits better with modern thought. Various problems starting with "Final cause" can not be used in a causal chain unless we extract and have only a short term perspective. Nor is final cause goal directed without the use of teleology. Another conundrum

It is true humans are goal directed, but I have yet to see how boxcar's excerpt of DR. Feser supports a real effect preceding a cause that inherently produces it mentally. (Efficient causse?)

In the context of causality which was the root of the debate boxcar and I had, I brought up and boxcar denied .....

Dr Feser is apparently conflating an imaginary or projected effect with a physical effect. Therefore drawing the premise that effect precedes cause mentally is bogus. I have yet to see Dr Feser postulating time running backwards mentallty. Looks like boxcar is back fitting Dr Feser into his time fantasies

As I have pointed out a number of times, a very detailed blueprint of a skyscraper, in fact thousands that are needed to construct it...... is not the actual final effect of the goal directed purpose of the Architect, his firm or the hundreds of sub designers. Yes it is highly developed and highly detailed but not the skyscraper itself

Beware, Doc, beware. Don't get sucked into Hcap's false premises. For example, he accuses Feser of conflating an imaginary "or projected effect with a physical effect", which isn't true! If someone's thoughts are merely imaginary, this means by definition that they're not real. They lack any factual reality,etc. But I have already debunked this a few weeks ago when Hcap vehemently opposed the idea that that the physical and immaterial aspects of this world (such as thoughts, minds, intellect) are equally valid, since it is mind that moves (gets our bodies to act).

Also, you should ask him what is the purpose behind blueprints to a construction project. He has steadfastly refused to address my questions about this that I posed in 704, even though SOMEHOW blueprints produced by "imaginary" effects (goals, ends, outcomes, results, purposes, intentionality, end products) held in mind are necessary, according to him. How can something that is the product of something that isn't real be necessary?

Finally, Hcap is subtlety trying to conflate imagination with coherent, cohesive ideas conceived in intellect. Or perhaps even more accurately, he's trying to reduce all activity in the latter state to the former! But there is a huge difference between these two states of mental activity, which even Feser recognized and argued for cogently.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, you're not going to answer the questions because to answer them would be to refute your own position! Why do you think I said in 679 regarding an answer from you, "If you dare..."?

Your reverse time premise from your 11 part pseudo-scientific thesis which was the basis for all your erroneous factual assumptions about time I have criticized for years culminated with your bet that effect may precede cause and recently trying to use Dr. Feser to support tat bet.

I have patiently explained how the difference between expecting a light bulb to illuminate in the physical by switching the switch is so, very, very different than imagining the illumination by imagining flipping the switch. And how technological development is more than just having a goal. And how much worse it is confusing a goal for the actual "effect" of completing that goal in the physical world.

We have has pages and pages and you call me "forked tongue" and ignore my real world experience in technological development in favor of your.....in engineering terms, half-baked, kluge like theories.

A kludge or kluge (/klʌdʒ, kluːdʒ/) is a workaround or quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain. This term is used in diverse fields such as computer science, aerospace engineering, Internet slang, evolutionary neuroscience, and government.

Is it any wonder I have put you on ignore?
After insult upon insult?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Beware, Doc, beware. Don't get sucked into Hcap's false premises. For example, he accuses Feser of conflating an imaginary "or projected effect with a physical effect", which isn't true! If someone's thoughts are merely imaginary, this means by definition that they're not real. They lack any factual reality,etc. But I have already debunked this a few weeks ago when Hcap vehemently opposed the idea that that the physical and immaterial aspects of this world (such as thoughts, minds, intellect) are equally valid, since it is mind that moves (gets our bodies to act).

I never said thoughts or goals or purpose aren't real. Of course or imaginations are real

The inner workings of the mind are real, but they are not the same as the non mental physical world. Although there are biochemical and bio electrical components of the brain

Do not understand why you can't get this.
I will give you one last chance. The bottom line remains do you think time runs in reverse in the mind?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I never said thoughts or goals or purpose aren't real. Of course or imaginations are real

The inner workings of the mind are real, but they are not the same as the physical world.

Do not understand why you can't get this.
I will give you one last chance. The bottom line remains do you think time runs in reverse in the mind?

But you have denied that mental activity is not as equally valid as physical activity, even though the former logically presupposes the latter!

You have also denied previously the existence of effects (ends, goals, outcomes, results, purposes,etc. existing in mind until after the device is built, remember?

HCAP EXHIBIT B:

In no way does the thought of, imagined outcome, or EFFECT desired exist until the device is built. THEREFORE Edison in inventing the light bulb first generated the desire, the knowledge and put into action what was necessary to CAUSE the light bulb.

It's also begging to be asked: How would Edison have known what is necessary to cause the light bulb, if he didn't have a clear goal and purpose for it in mind? And both of these presuppose the bulb's desired end or effect to held in intellect!

Also, imaginations are distinct from coherent ideas conceived in intellect.

Further ,you have said that effects grasped in mind are not real. They are only imaginary.

Yet, you have also contradicted yourself again in your very first paragraph, since effects, ends, end products, outcomes, etc. are necessary prerequisites to goals and purposes. Did Edison have a purpose or not for the light bulb that he conceived in mind?. If he had a purpose for the bulb, then he grasped the desired effect in intellect prior to the bulb's effect existing in the physical world. (See also my 624 in which I argued this more in depth.)

Finally, the arrow of time is not the current topic. You only raise this irrelevant topic to create a smokescreen for your lame posts.

Soo...what do you suppose the purpose is behind an architect's blueprint? Does the blueprint reflect the builder's intentions, his desired end for that particular structure, the specific effect he intends for the structure?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your reverse time premise from your 11 part pseudo-scientific thesis which was the basis for all your erroneous factual assumptions about time I have criticized for years culminated with your bet that effect may precede cause and recently trying to use Dr. Feser to support tat bet.

I have patiently explained how the difference between expecting a light bulb to illuminate in the physical by switching the switch is so, very, very different than imagining the illumination by imagining flipping the switch. And how technological development is more than just having a goal. And how much worse it is confusing a goal for the actual "effect" of completing that goal in the physical world.

We have has pages and pages and you call me "forked tongue" and ignore my real world experience in technological development in favor of your.....in engineering terms, half-baked, kluge like theories.

Is it any wonder I have put you on ignore?
After insult upon insult?

Soo...now you admit that Edison held in mind the expectation that his electrical device would illuminate spaces, right? But expectation is nothing less than the anticipation or looking forward to something in particular. In fact, to expect is to actually consider probable or certain. Therefore, for Edison to expect a certain outcome, result, end, or end product is just to say that he was expecting the light bulb to have the EFFECT of illumination of spaces!

Now I suppose you want me to show you that Edison did more than merely "imagine" illumination? You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by totally-bollixed-up-car

Finally, the arrow of time is not the current topic. You only raise this irrelevant topic to create a smokescreen for your lame posts.

This why it is useless to discuss anything meaningful with you.
The direction of time as indicated by the arrow of time or causality is the essence of our disagreement and specifically your recent mangling of cause and effect. And then claiming Dr Feser backs you up. Your ongoing problem is the inability to remember the larger context of our discussion.

And on the way to forgetting you construct meandering "rabbit holes" distracting and obfuscating what we are debating.

These are some of your recent rabbit holes that come to mind

"Time stops when motion stops"
"The direction of time is dependent on the direction of the rotation of the earth."

As I said one last chance to either support your premise...... that time runs in revere in our minds. Other than that I will absolutely avoid anything to do with your worn out seriously it is getting very old time bone......fido

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

This why it is useless to discuss anything meaningful with you.
The direction of time as indicated by the arrow of time or causality is the essence of our disagreement and specifically your recent mangling of cause and effect. And then claiming Dr Feser backs you up. Your ongoing problem is the inability to remember the larger context of our discussion.

And on the way to forgetting you construct meandering "rabbit holes" distracting and obfuscating what we are debating.

These are some of your recent rabbit holes that come to mind

"Time stops when motion stops"
"The direction of time is dependent on the direction of the rotation of the earth."

As I said one last chance to either support your premise...... hat time runs in revere in our minds. Other than that I will absolutely avoid anything to do with your worn out seriously it is getting very old time bone......fido

It is not the essence of THIS particular disagreement. The warp 'n' woof of this discussion is that causes don't always precede effects! Period! You have maintained unequivocally that causes always precede effects, without exception. And that is pure nonsense. You again have shot yourself in the foot bringing expectation into discussion because it begs the question, yet again!. It's begging to be asked, for example, what was Edison expecting his light bulb to do? Was he expecting it to shoot off fireworks into the air? Was he expecting it kill flying insects? Was he expecting it to perfume the air? Was he expecting it to make different kinds of animal sounds? Or was his purpose for this electrical device that he coherently conceived in intellect to illuminate spaces --to radiate light? If his purpose was the latter, then having a particular purpose presupposes a thing's specific end. It presupposes a desired, envisioned effect! Therefore, this electrical device's effect existed in Edison's mind prior to it existing in the physical world.

Nothing can be invented or built or created in the physical realm without its effect first being in intellect, since it is the intellect that moves or directs or causes our bodies to act towards goals, ends and purposes. Yet, you have stated very clearly and emphatically, that isn't how human beings work in the real world.

HCAP EXHIBIT B:

In no way does the thought of, imagined outcome, or EFFECT desired exist until the device is built. THEREFORE Edison in inventing the light bulb first generated the desire, the knowledge and put into action what was necessary to CAUSE the light bulb.

What manner of backwards thinking and gibberish is this!? You've been trying to get us to swallow the horse pill that says Edison had no goal, no purpose, no outcome, no intended effect in mind until AFTER the light bulb was created. And you're completely and shamelessly oblivious to how insane this sounds! As I asked in my last post, how in the world could have Edison put into action what was necessary if he had no ends, purposes, goals, outcomes or effects in mind first?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It is not the essence of THIS particular disagreement. The warp 'n' woof of this discussion is that causes don't always precede effects! Period!

You are too dumb to remember why you wanted to bet me.

I repeated over and over again cause always precedes effect on the human scale of the universe......as demonstration of causality (cause and effect), as the direction of time. Not being able to find anything, after one month of dragging your feet you finally composed your recent preposterous answer.

So it is not what the larger context of the discussion was about. It has been about time runnig ass backwards in your ass backwards cosmology. Your attempt at redefining cause and effect as a mental process, in contrast to a universal process,..... is only another one of your meandering endless "rabbit holes" of misdirection and obfuscation

Ok, I tried to explain why you are wrong without any success and in much detail. So since you can not find anything in the physical world, and now claim causation may run in reverse in the mental realm, once again I question what must be your absurd illogical conclusion.

That you are saying time runs in the opposite direction...mentally.....versus the commonly accepted direction of time...physically

No other details are required to show you are dead wrong.
Q.E.D. It is liked counting your fingers and arriving at 12.

'Nuff said.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Beware, Doc, beware. Don't get sucked into Hcap's false premises. For example, he accuses Feser of conflating an imaginary "or projected effect with a physical effect", which isn't true! If someone's thoughts are merely imaginary, this means by definition that they're not real. They lack any factual reality,etc. But I have already debunked this a few weeks ago when Hcap vehemently opposed the idea that that the physical and immaterial aspects of this world (such as thoughts, minds, intellect) are equally valid, since it is mind that moves (gets our bodies to act).

Also, you should ask him what is the purpose behind blueprints to a construction project. He has steadfastly refused to address my questions about this that I posed in 704, even though SOMEHOW blueprints produced by "imaginary" effects (goals, ends, outcomes, results, purposes, intentionality, end products) held in mind are necessary, according to him. How can something that is the product of something that isn't real be necessary?

Finally, Hcap is subtlety trying to conflate imagination with coherent, cohesive ideas conceived in intellect. Or perhaps even more accurately, he's trying to reduce all activity in the latter state to the former! But there is a huge difference between these two states of mental activity, which even Feser recognized and argued for cogently.

Non-rational beings in nature require an explanation outside themselves for their causal power, therefore they are an instrumental, secondary cause and not the principal cause of what they produce. Its not that moderns draw blood against that with winning arguments- its that moderns regarding philosophy of science haven't even been exposed to such argumentation, and assume only efficient causation.

Yet I don't know anyone who proposes the above, who also ties it to linear time. As I mentioned, Classical theism does not maintain God as first cause in a temporal series, but first in principal, as the sole explanation for the causal power to create ex nihilo.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are too dumb to remember why you wanted to bet me.

I repeated over and over again cause always precedes effect on the human scale of the universe......as demonstration of causality (cause and effect), as the direction of time. Not being able to find anything, after one month of dragging your feet you finally composed your recent preposterous answer.

So it is not what the larger context of the discussion was about. It has been about time runnig ass backwards in your ass backwards cosmology. Your attempt at redefining cause and effect as a mental process, in contrast to a universal process,..... is only another one of your meandering endless "rabbit holes" of misdirection and obfuscation

Ok, I tried to explain why you are wrong without any success and in much detail. So since you can not find anything in the physical world, and now claim causation may run in reverse in the mental realm, once again I question what must be your absurd illogical conclusion.

That you are saying time runs in the opposite direction...mentally.....versus the commonly accepted direction of time...physically

No other details are required to show you are dead wrong.
Q.E.D. It is liked counting your fingers and arriving at 12.

'Nuff said.

In other words, Edison invented light bulb without having effect (intentionaltiy, purpose, goal or end) in mind? None of these things occurred until after he invented the device, right?

And I haven't redefined anything. In intellect EFFECTS MUST ALWAYS s precede causes, otherwise human beings are irrational and would not be able to accomplish anything.

Why can't you understand that in this universe metaphysical (immaterial) and physical (material) realities co-exist and they do not function the same way? Moreover, why can't you understand the equally obvious fact that the metaphysical dominates and controls the physical, just as mind controls the body?

You need to show us how Edison or anyone else could invent anything without have the desired effect (end, purpose, goal, result, outcome) in mind prior to the effect existing in the physical realm. You need to show us this conclusively. You need to show us, in other words, that our bodies direct, control and cause our minds to think thoughts -- because this is the only logical conclusion to your denial of the self-evident truth that effects occur in intellect prior to occurring in the physical world.. You need to show how our bodies dominate our minds -- how the physical directs the non-physical.

And finally, with respect to this particular subject, if I'm wrong and effects never precede causes in mind, then you should be able to clearly demonstrate that my premise violates the Law of Noncontradiction. How can causes always precede effects (as you claim) and not always precede effects (as I claim)? Clearly, this is a contradiction, right? Plus I'm giving you a golden opportunity to dazzle us all with your "brilliance" by showing us how to correctly use this law to detect contradictions. Please, please show us how to properly apply this law. Shine, shine away, baby.

You also need demonstrate for us what this all has to do with the "arrow of time".

And by the way, if you ever want to go back to the "arrow of time" discussion, you need to refute my "fishing in the stream" time analogy. You need to demonstrate how my analogy is wrong.

[hcap]

HCAP EXHIBIT B:

In no way does the thought of, imagined outcome, or EFFECT desired exist until the device is built. THEREFORE Edison in inventing the light bulb first generated the desire, the knowledge and put into action what was necessary to CAUSE the light bulb.

I will give you a practical example, not a half baked klugr
you are fond of.

I briefly worked as a draftsman in L.A. back in the 70's.
The firm was an electrical sub-contractor hired by architectural firms to prepare detailed layouts of electrical switches, outlets and sockets for the floor plans of both the residential and commercial structure they designed. We were aware of building codes (both residential and commercial) needed for our proper layouts. All those architects could have looked them up, but they did not concern themselves, except generally of electrical power service of each floor

Then of course our finished drawings were used by electricians and journeymen doing the actual physical work.

There were reams of drawings of floor plans done by draftsmen in the architectural firm for each individual building. The top architects at those companies had a goal of completing each building, but none held the entire vision.....in all hundreds of thousands details.....in mind. Goals oriented problem solving as applied technological development may be sub-divided. particularly for complex and complicated projects. That is the only way involved extensive goals can be attained.

At any stage of the designing, drafting and construction,. the final effect of the building, the building itself, including all the myriad details can not be envisioned at one time.But the goal can be divided up and illustrated in all it's complex myriad details.

Sounds like your theoretical half-baked version of "effect" that you claim can be envisioned, can easily skip over the first few floors of a skyscraper not yet built.

The actual structure...the final "effect" of all those workers working must include those floors, your sketchy substitute seems it can can stand on thin air

If you are proposing a symmetry of cause and effect in the mind, in the physical world all the details of both cause and the effects they produce are exact.

If you propose the reverse mentally, they ALSO SHOULD BE EXACT RUNNING IN REVERSE

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Non-rational beings in nature require an explanation outside themselves for their causal power, therefore they are an instrumental, secondary cause and not the principal cause of what they produce. Its not that moderns draw blood against that with winning arguments- its that moderns regarding philosophy of science haven't even been exposed to such argumentation, and assume only efficient causation.

Yet I don't know anyone who proposes the above, who also ties it to linear time. As I mentioned, Classical theism does not maintain God as first cause in a temporal series, but first in principal, as the sole explanation for the causal power to create ex nihilo.

Actually, moderns for the most part assume material and efficient causes, categorically rejecting the two most important underling causes. I'm fully aware of the catastrophic failings of individuals, societies and even nations that reject Thomistic Realism. In fact, Feser devoted one huge paragraph in his book detailing what all the serious ramifications have been over the centuries. If I find time later, I'll quote that paragraph. It's mind-blowing! But it does go to show with crystal clear clarity that when people fill their minds with garbage (falsehoods), then garbage can only come of their mouths and flow from their pens. Truly, we are what we think!

Regarding your last paragraph, it's only Hcap applying "it" to linear time. In his simple-mindedness, he can only associate cause and effect in the physical world.

However, if Classical Theism doesn't doesn't maintain that God is "first cause" in an essential temporal series, then how does that square with Feser's Hand, Stick and Stone illustration in chapter 3 to which he gives quite a bit of ink?

More fundamentally important, how does that square with Thomistic Realism, since Aquinas never particularly concerned himself with going "backwards in time" to prove First Cause or an Unmoved Mover; but rather as Feser has said Aquinas "drilled down" into the here and now -- into the present moment, ergo Feser's Hand, Stick and Stone illustration?

Finally, and most importantly, how does Classical Theism square with scripture, which is the source and fountainhead of all truth!? I'm an advocate for Thomistic Realism only because it is biblical! Aquinas was right when he cut to the chase of first causes by making and proving his case by restricting his consideration to only the present! Whether or not he had any particular scriptures in mind when he formulated his argument, the irrefutable fact remains that he was on solid biblical ground! His philosophy was built on none other than The Rock, per the following:

Heb 1:2-3
2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
NASB

And,

Col 1:16-17
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
NASB

And,

Acts 17:28
28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His offspring.'
NASB

Notice the tenses of the key verbs in the bolded parts. Christ is sustaining as in right now -- right this moment-- each and every one of us and not only us, but the entire universe. So...since the universe is God's
finite, temporal creation then I'm at a loss to understand how God is not the first cause in a temporal series of causes.