existent through itself.

Its existence, then, does not depend on anything external to it. Accordingly, His possessing His attributes—whether or not this is called composition—does not prevent Him from being necessary in Himself, without depending on anything external to Him. For this reason, His attributes are necessarily existent in this respect, even if this entails that the designation “Necessary Existent” applies to more than one thing in this sense.

This differs from using the designation to mean the existent being that brings contingent beings into existence, for He is One—glory be to Him—and has no partner.

If, however, it means that which exists through itself and subsists in itself, then His inseparable attributes would be contingent. This, however, would imply that some contingent beings are eternal and without beginning. This is false, as we have explained at length elsewhere.

[The Third Argument]

It may be said:

Your assertion, “The aggregate composed of the necessary and the contingent is contingent,” may be challenged as follows: the aggregate is nothing other than the individual members existing in external reality. It comprises all those members, some of which are necessary and others contingent. The totality is not a positive attribute inhering in the individual members; rather, it is a relational notion, like number in external reality. Its totality is therefore nothing other than the particular individual members in question. Clearly, the whole is not identical to any one individual member, but consists of all the members together. Thus, the individual members