In Aquinas the relationship between Primary cause and Secondary Causes is not \; the &lsquo\;chain&rsquo\; model with its first &lsquo\;ring&rsquo\;\, but it is a relationship between the cause of the existence of the universe as a whole\, and the particular causes acting within the universe. In this sense the Big Bang also would be a secondary cause\, not a first cause. Aquinas' commentator Herbert McCabe makes a comparison between the truth that we get from hearsay by some person and the existence that comes from a natural cause (for example\, a child from his or her parents): as hearsay relies on a first-hand witness\, so existence coming from any natural cause relies on the existence of the whole universe\, whose cause is God. \;
\nWhat is created (i.e.\, what exists because the whole universe exists) does not have any &lsquo\;created&rsquo\; characteristics that could enable us to detect any activity by the creator. There is no quality like &lsquo\;to be a creature&rsquo\;: the fact that things are created does not leave any trace in them\, in the same way as happens when a thing is thought. \; To be created identifies with to exist from nothing\, and an existing thing does not have different qualities in comparison with a non-existing thing. \;
\nWhereas\, apart from creation\, all the other causes (Secondary C auses\, that is\, Natural Causes) \; make \; differences \; in the \; world (for example\, a \; hurricane leaves detectable traces of its action)\, but God does not: he \; makes \; things \; precisely \; as \; they \; are\, the \; world as \; it \; is.
\n\n