This is wrong. If there isn't a state C prior to B (where C is not B) then A can not be said be said to cause B because B already existed.leroy said:1 is not granted, and since everything seems to follow from 1 your whole argument collapses. "A" can cause "B" without C.
Let's use your example:
If there wasn't a state "C" not being wet, touching the water would not cause it to be wet because it is already wet.leroy said:for example an object gets wet because it touches water,
"A" would be touching water (cause)
"B" would be getting wet.
it is also true that A and B are simultaneous, which means that you don't need time to go from A to B
Causal relations without time makes no sense. If A and B happens simultaneously you can't say that A caused B, because they just are simultaneously.
Not to mention how terrible your example is. "Wetness" is not something onto itself, you need something to be wet. And Wet is by definition touching water, and not really a cause.
To briefly answer your question. The orbit of the earth is determined by the dynamics of material accretion, the expansion of the cosmos is determined by the energy contained there in, and even the diameter of a sphere comes into being by the assembly of the sphere itself. All of which are material. It is not surprising that the only examples you can come up with about causation are material.leroy said:Well think about the diameter of a sphere, or the orbit of the earth, or the expansion of the cosmos, these things obviously had an efficient cause, but it is not clear if they also had a material cause.What's the meaning of the words "efficient cause" without a "material cause"?
It would help if you define efficient cause, material cause, and then explain why one can’t exist without the other
But the most important point I want to make about this is that once again you failed to follow the rules of argumentation, because you are not equipped to do so.
When some one challenges you that your concept of something is meaningless, the burden is on you to provide a definition. You can not just continue arguing as if that wasn't an issue.
And if you can not provide a definition, then the argument is by default over, because you can't have a conversation about undefined things, and all arguments you make about it are by default wrong because you have nothing it refers to.
I'm not going to provide a definition for you, my point is that it doesn't have one, hence why it is illogical.
Your are not equipped to debate this topic. And I would need to teach you some basic principles of philosophy before you could even remotely start a conversation, and I'm in no mood to do that.