The term “recognition” may denote knowledge whose object is a specific, particular thing, whereas “knowledge,” when contrasted with recognition, denotes knowledge whose object is universal and general. “Recognition” may also denote knowledge of the thing itself, although “knowledge” originally encompasses both kinds, as explained at length elsewhere. We shall later discuss people’s statements concerning acknowledgment of the Maker and whether it is attained through each of these two kinds.

Elsewhere, we have discussed their question: Is the reason for dependence upon an efficient cause temporal origination, contingency, or both together?

We explained that if this means, for example, that temporal origination indicates that something originated needs an originator, or that temporal origination is a condition for something produced to depend upon an agent, then this is correct. But if it means that temporal origination itself makes the originated thing dependent upon an agent, then this is false. Likewise, if contingency is understood as evidence of dependence upon an efficient cause, or as a condition for that dependence, then this is correct. But if it is understood as making the contingent thing itself dependent, then this is false.

Accordingly, there is no incompatibility in temporal origination and contingency each being both evidence of dependence upon an efficient cause and a condition for that dependence.

The dispute concerns only two questions.

The first is whether something whose existence is necessary through another, without beginning or end, can properly be regarded as produced