And the composite that requires a composer is something that another has composed, just as something moved that requires a mover is something that another has moved. No rational person has ever said that the Necessary Existent is a composite composed by another.

When you call the union of the essence and the attributes “composition,” you mean only union, plurality, combination, multiplicity of meanings, and the like. You do not mean that there is an agent who brings this about. If you do mean that, it is false, and both the expression and its meaning are invalid.

The original argument is that, if the Necessary Existent is an essence possessing attributes, it must be composite. If someone means by this that there is someone who composed it from essence and attributes, that implication is denied; indeed, it is self-evidently false. For if we suppose that the intrinsically Necessary Existent, which has no need of an agent, possesses attributes inseparable from it, then it is impossible that there should be someone who combined this intrinsically Necessary Existent with the attributes it necessarily possesses. Its being intrinsically necessary precludes its having an agent, while its attributes being inseparable from it precludes both their separation from it and their needing someone to place them in it.

How, then, can it be said that it has a composer who composed it, so that one may then say, “This is a composition that requires a composer,” and, “An eternal composite cannot exist”—that is, one eternal in itself?

Whoever calls this “composition” and says that it is eternal means that it is a combination, conjunction, and union. Something of this kind does not require someone to compose, combine, or unite it. Even if it were said