I can't tell if you're saying that astrology not being an efficient cause means you don't believe it, or something else. Or I missed the point :-)

Also I take issue with the statement:

While it would be incorrect to say that Mars as the main time lord for zodiacal releasing of fortune was the cause of an accident or illness, one can also look at it as a non-random, material or contributing cause creating higher probability for such events within that set of significations

The whole point of my recent post on astrology which brought me here thanks to your comment is that "creating higher probability for such events" is never demonstrated. Correlation of events with planetary positions or anything else astrology cares to consider is always no better than chance.

Unless when you actually say "one can also look at it as" you will later say "... but it isn't". However I didn't get that.

Sorry, not trying to be obtuse, but I think I am missing something based on your comment on my post.