Does the idea of "secondary causes" imply that God reveals Himself by His creation, or that He does not at all? *Wikipedia* provides this definition of "secondary causation " where there seems to be a very strong autonomy of world realities relative to God: > Secondary causation[3] is the philosophical proposition that all material and corporeal objects, having been created by God with their own intrinsic potentialities, are subsequently empowered to evolve independently in accordance with natural law. The definition provided here seems to still insist that there is a link between world's realities (humans, nature, etc.), although they are separate: > The theologians speaking of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important, if we would be true to the bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied. > >Only, it is important to observe that the two causes are not on the same plane. They are not coordinate, but one is completely subordinate to another. In every event in the natural world God has completely accomplished what he willed to accomplish. He is not limited in any way by the forces of nature or by the free actions of his creatures. They act truly; but they truly act only as he has determined they shall act. The correct way, therefore, expressing the relation between secondary causes and God, the great First Cause, is to say that God makes use of second causes to accomplish what is accordance with his eternal purpose. > >Second causes are not independent forces whose cooperation He needs, but they are means that He employs exactly as He will. This picture illustrates the idea of "secondary causation": So **what is the idea behind "secondary causation"**? Is it that we can interpret natural things as revealing something about God (e.g. God's will, God's perfection, God's goodness), or is it that by studying nature, we should not think about God's presence behind those natural things? Or is it the idea that it allows to be agnostic on that matter, allowing us to see God's presence if we will, nor not if we prefer not to. **Response to comments**: From discussion with users in the comments, I get the impression that the “secondary causation” principle can itself be object of various interpretations.

I'm struggling with this question for a while: It seems like dogs do know what dogs are. Is it possible for a dog to only recognize individuals and not grasp the universal concept of dog? I thought this ability to recognize universals was the ability that God gave to Adam (to name things) and thus that separated him from the animals. How did the Christian scholastic theologians (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) separate the animal and spiritual capacities of human beings?

Thomists believe that there is no real distinction between perfections of God as God is pure act. My understanding is that they reject real distinctions between perfections because that leads to act and potency composition, but why would that be the case?

I have been reading what St. Thomas has to say on resurrection and how the human body will be changed afterwards. St. Thomas talks about how all people, the damned and the saints alike, will become immortals. He says the soul will communicate its natural immortality to the body. Summa Contra Gentiles, CHAPTER LXXXIX--Of the quality of Risen Bodies in the Lost:   > Now the human body, after the resurrection, will not be transmutable > from form to form, either in the good or in the wicked; because in > both it will be entirely perfected by the soul in respect of its > natural being. Summa Contra Gentiles, CHAPTER LXXXVI--Of the Qualities of Glorified Bodies:   > The bodies of all men alike will be organised as befits the soul, so > that the soul shall be an imperishable form giving imperishable being > to the body, because to this effect the power of God will entirely > subject the matter of the human body to the human soul.   Summa Theologiae, (This is from my notes and I forgot where exactly in the Summa this is):   > But in the final state, after the resurrection, the soul will, to a > certain extent, communicate to the body what properly belongs to > itself as a spirit; immortality to everyone; impassibility, glory, and > power to the good, whose bodies will be called "spiritual." If this is the case, then why can't the soul keep the body from corruption now so that humans become naturally immortal without the need of any preternatural gift to keep us immortals? I wish to get an answer from a metaphysical and Catholic perspective.

In the Old Testament, God reveals himself numerous times to the prophets in physical forms (Genesis 18:1-2, Exodus 24:9, Numbers 12:8, Isaiah 6:1). But according to scripture, God is omnipresent, meaning he is already present everywhere (Jeremiah 23:24, Psalm 139:7). So what does it really mean for God to be physically present in a specific place if God is already present there?

As I understand, Evangelical Protestants believe that Jesus took on the sins of humanity through his death, acting as a substitute for the target of the justice of God, and that salvation comes through faith in Jesus, as evidenced in the Gospels. Do Evangelicals have beliefs as to *why* (in a metaphysical sense) faith is required for salvation? If Jesus already took on the sins of the world, why are humans required to have faith in Jesus to be saved? FOR CLARITY: I understand it is stated in the Gospels that we must have faith to be saved, I am asking whether evangelicals have theories that explain why this is the case, or if it is simply accepted as a mystery.

I understand there is the theology of creation ex nihilo; but has any theologian thought of whether God can make things go from existing to nihilo? In other words, can God make something not exist any longer? I guess this would be related to annihilationism, but that is rather a pun unintended.

In the *Summa Theologiae,* St. Thomas Aquinas says that "angels do not assume bodies from the earth or water, or they could not suddenly disappear." *Source*: [Ia Q. 51 Art. 2 (Whether angels assume bodies) Obj. 3](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm) Based on Catholic theology, does this mean angels cannot destroy matter, if they cannot make earth or water disappear?

According to modern physics, all physical things are reducible to atoms, and that's all they are. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, the piece of bread's substance is transformed into Jesus, while its accidents remain the bread. If the accidents are the atoms, then this implies there is more to the bread, i.e. its 'substance', than just the atoms, and this substance is changed. If this is true, then is modern physics wrong, and there is something more to what bread is than just the atoms it is made of? Additionally, what is this 'more' thing if we were to remove all the atoms from the bread, what would be left that provides the substance of the bread? Alternatively, if the atoms constitute the entirety of the bread, then what changes about the bread during the Eucharist? UPDATE: I've asked a related question in the philosophy stackexchange. I'm not sure if I should close this question in the Christianity SE, since it has a couple answers.

What is a formal [ontological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) definition of the nature of God according to the doctrine of the [Trinity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity) ? Are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ontologically independent entities, each one being particulars of universal divine attributes? If so, wouldn't that mean 3 Gods instead of 1 God? Or should we understand God as one entity comprised of 3 "sub-entities"? But then what would it mean that "the Father is God", "the Son is God", "the Holy Spirit is God"? What does it mean ontologically that "X is God" according to Trinitarianism? Take for example what the Athanasian Creed postulates: *"So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord"*. Is "Lord" being used here as an entity, as a predicate over entities, or what? ______ In case the question ends up getting closed as off-topic: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/79273/are-there-any-publications-that-attempt-to-give-a-formal-ontological-definition

My question assumes ousia in Christian orthodoxy means a particular (not universal) essence or form, and not a concrete instantiation (hypostasis). If the Father and Son have the same ousia, where are the properties that distinguish them? Does the hypostasis have additional distinguishing properties? If so, are these properties necessary or contingent? If necessary, how are they definitionally excluded from the ousia?

I read this comment from one of the answers: > As we are only mortal flesh, we are not capable of understanding the > unique nature of God. Jesus also many times found it difficult to > explain about God and Heavenly things. It's like trying to explain how > a computer works to the elderly people who are not familiar with it. > Once I tried to explain how a computer works to my father, it was > impossible and I gave up. My question is: According to the Roman Catholic Church why is our world so different from the spiritual one and how that difference servers Gods plan for us? Our life in this physical world should serve as a gateway to the spiritual realm after we die but if it's so different how that can serve the purpose.

I've often wondered, while watching the various televised Eucharistic celebrations on EWTN (i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic adoration, World Youth Day events, etc.), whether or not there is any connection between the reality of Christ's Real Presence that is being recorded/broadcast *live* and the viewer(s) who are perceiving the *live* broadcast. Lets hypothetically say that I'm flipping through TV channels and I happen to land on EWTN precisely at the moment that Fr. Mitch Pacwa is elevating the consecrated Host during the liturgy of the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I'm obligated to believe that in that situation I would be looking at a real-time image of Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity present on the altar. Of course there should be some sort of reverence involved, but to what extent? I found it very interesting that during World Youth Day 2013 there were giant screens set up throughout the audience in order for everyone (3 million+) to be able to see the Eucharistic celebrations. It seems apparent to me that Catholics were able to actively participate in the WYD 2013 Eucharistic events even though they might have been a mile or two down the beach. I'm wanting to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches about the metaphysical relationship between Christ's *actual* presence on the altar, and his "presence" on the receiving end of a live broadcast. Can someone who is home bound and is unable to attend Mass/adoration adore the Host as if they were truly present? To what extent are *all* Catholics obliged to revere the televised Host? It is important to understand that this question is *exclusively* about a *live* broadcast feed in *real time*, and *not* about any other type of Eucharistic image. This is specifically a Catholic question...so please no anti-Catholic "new age iconoclasm" please.

The Philosopher Gottlob Frege distinguishes between four different meaning behind the word 'is': 1) 'is' as in identity; Saul is Paul. 2) 'is' as in predicate; Paul is Christian. 3) 'is' as in subset; Paul is a Man. (Paul is a member of the class 'Men'). 4) 'is' as in existence; God is. As one not raised or well versed in the Christian faith, I would like to know, when Christians say "The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God, and yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy spirit is not the Father." what meaning they ascribe to the word 'is'. Please feel free to give the different answers according to the different branches of Christianity. Addendum: If the answer is 1), identity, how do Christians get around the problem of the Transitivity of Identity' If A = B & B = C then A = C?

When we receive the Holy Eucharist we consume Jesus's glorified body. Now many say it is purely spiritual food. > The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was instituted as a food, **a > spiritual food**(source ). Also > Since the Holy Eucharist is a spiritual food, it does for the soul > what physical food does for the body. When we eat physical food, it > becomes united to us—it is changed into our own substance and becomes > a part of us. > > In Holy Communion, something analogous happens to us spiritually, but > with a great **difference**: in this case, it is the individual who is > united to the Food, not the Food to the individual. The lesser is > united to the Greater. We become one with Christ. **Now my question is:** if the Eucharist is a spiritual food why does it need to be presented in a physical form? As a host? Did Jesus embed a physical union with his body too? Does the physical form have any effects on our physical body too? What does the Catholic Church have to say about this? He could simply say for example: Pray: Our Father as your spiritual food...or read the bible as your spiritual food but since he established the Eucharist in a physical form there must be some meaning behind it too. Note: I found some answers here but I wondered if someone found something more in regards to this statement How is a glorified body related to molecules, to that which constitutes non-glorified material objects? The answer is a mystery.

God, according to most disciplines of Christianity, is thought to be All-Powerful, All-Knowing and Everpresent. The first two however seem to Juxtapose with everything we know about the natural world. For instance, things are described by sets of variables, like the orientation of a tennis ball, it's mass, how fast it's going, where it is etc yet on the smaller scales, there's a fundamental fuzziness to Nature which means that things don't exist in those sort of states at all, but have distributions. And moreover, if something like how fast something's going is narrowed down to a very small range of values, it's scattered randomly over a far larger section of space. It would seem fundamentally impossible for knowledge of these things simultaneously to exist at all, let alone be continually known by any presence, given what implications that holds [knowing one of the variables inevitably leads to affecting the other, conjugate variable, meaning that it would be continually messing around with the distributions of every system in the universe]. How do you reconcile this / argue against this with Christianity?

From my understanding, the unity of spirit, soul, and body is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, or “person.” But, what argument is there against the soul itself (apart from the body) being a ὑπόστασις? It seems the soul possesses reason. It exists by itself. So, why is it not considered to be a ὑπόστασις? Or, if it is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, where and by whom is such an argument affirmed? I am particularly interested in an answer in accordance with Catholic beliefs. **NOTE**: To clarify, I am using «ὑπόστασις» as an equivalent to the Greek πρόσωπον and Latin *persona* as understood in Trinitarian creeds and theology.

It seems to me that before the Enlightenment, the predominant understanding of the structure of the universe was that the _cosmos_, while stratified, is unitary- that "the Heavens", which include the spheres of the stars, then of the angels, and the abode of YHWH, have substantial existence in the same way that the Earth does. An example that this belief was commonplace is Pauls refusal, upon describing an event in which a man "went up to the third Heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2, to say if he went up in the body, that is physically, or in the spirit. It also seems that after the Enlightenment, the predominant understanding of the structure of the _cosmos_ became binary- that there is a _physical_ realm of existence and a _spiritual_ realm of existence, where the _spiritual_ realm both fills and transcends the _physical_. Is there historical evidence to suggest that such a transition has taken place within Christendom?

I have asked earlier how Christians understand God in relation to the scientific concept of energy. Ultimately that line of questioning was stopped by the observation that my ontology was very different from the likely respondents. While I addressed the issue of ontology in the physics stack exchange (and consequently had the question moved to the philosophy stack exchange), there seemed to be very little interest and even less consensus on a coherent and widely accepted ontology. This got me wondering, Is there a widely (or historically) accepted Christian ontology? ____ FYI: My personal definition of "existence" would run something like "that property which, when possessed by a well defined object, allows for causal interaction with other well defined objects that share the property of existence."