The response to this has several aspects.

First, the first premise is disputed. What evidence is there that, if an essence exists with attributes inseparable from it, there must exist an essence that moves through a motion originating from itself? He has nothing to support this beyond a merely verbal analogy.

Second, the substance of his claim is that composition requires a composing agent just as imparting motion requires a mover. If this is taken to mean that each has an agent, then each does indeed have an agent. If, however, composition as such is equated with motion as such, the reply is: On this interpretation, the meaning would be that, if something exists that possesses an attribute of itself, an agent must exist that moves of itself. If the real import of his statement is that, if something possesses attributes of itself, then something will exist that possesses actions of itself 0, he should be told: Either this entailment is valid or it is not. If it is not valid, it provides no argument. If it is valid, it constitutes proof that God Most High has actions. Its actual import would then be that the existence of attributes subsisting in Him entails the existence of actions subsisting in Him. What objection, then, is there to this, if the entailment is valid?

Third, his statement: “And if something that moves of itself exists, then what is nonexistent will come into existence of itself, because the coming into existence of what is nonexistent is the passage of what is potential into actuality,