Comparing Ontologies

Comparing the ontology of St. Thomas, the Spirit-Will of Evolutionary Christianity would be the "agent cause" of the world, the Spirit-Will would be God in the world of St. Thomas. The Spirit-Will is also close to Aristotle's idea of a changing Being, or “pure act” as the cause, and not Being as such. Both St. Thomas and Aristotle seem to have seen a Being or cause who is free of material or supermaterial substance, I do not.

I don't see the Spirit-Will as the cause of the world, the Spirit-Will reaches It's goal of Godhood, the cause of the world is Godhood, not the Spirit-Will. The Spirit-Will always activates life to Godhood, which is the goal of evolving life.

Heidegger sees Being as rising up out of concealment (Caputo), but this looks to me like the old metaphysics, making Being pure Spirit separated from the rest of the world. I would interpret this “rising out of concealment” as a description of the creation of the world, but I see no real concealment, I see only different levels of evolution where only a God could be evolved high enough to understand (unconcealed) a God, who is necessarily concealed from the lower evolved through levels of intelligence and complexity. I doubt that Heidegger meant “unconcealed” in this way.

I like the Duns Scotus idea of shifting “modes” of actuality, only I like the term “transformation.” Following the attainment of Godhood in evolution, Godhood transforms into the next world ---this is Godhood's Great Reward of Eternal Representation---and another “mode” is really the offspring of Godhood which must then evolve up to Godhood.

The beginning of it all remains a mystery which can't be solved without inventing fictional Beings of definition only, beyond the real world. It appears to have no beginning and no end, which suggests some other kind of Kosmic “logic” that does not need a nonmaterial Being to define eternity, but is always an evolving material to supermaterial Being.