Or it may be said:

It necessitates everything other than itself. If the configuration resulting from their combination is positive, then it is contingent, belonging to the contingent things other than itself. If it is privative, the matter is evident.

[The fourth argument]

It may be said:

The aggregate of existing things either includes a being necessary in itself or does not; that is, either this is assumed or it is not.

If a being necessary in itself is assumed among them, the necessity of the being necessary in itself is established, which is what is sought. If this is not assumed, this argument is invalidated. This reasoning has already been explained.

[The third proof against an infinite regress]

As for the third proof against an infinite regress, namely their statement:

“The totality of what the aggregate depends on must either be the aggregate itself, something within it, or something outside it.

“The first is impossible, for otherwise a thing would be its own cause. The second is impossible, for otherwise some of its parts would suffice for the aggregate. The third is therefore correct.”

[Al-Abharī’s objection to it]

He objected to it by saying:

“We reply: If by ‘the totality of what the aggregate depends on’ you mean all the things of which it can individually be said that the aggregate depends on them, why do you say that this cannot be the aggregate itself? What demonstrates this is that the totality of the things on which the necessary and the contingent depend is neither within the aggregate, since it depends on every part of it, nor outside it; thus it is the aggregate itself.