They are therefore told:

“You sought to avoid likening Him to an impaired living creature that neither hears nor sees, despite its potential to do so. Instead, you likened Him to an inanimate object that cannot possess either attribute. What you resorted to was therefore worse than what you sought to avoid.”

There are similar examples discussed at length elsewhere.

The point here is that whoever denies acts performed by His choice and subsisting in Him, lest the occurrence of any such act constitute an imperfection, has attributed utter imperfection to Him, supposedly to escape what he imagines to be an imperfection.

[The sixth argument]

It may be said:

For acts that came into existence after not existing, their existence before they actually came into being would not have been a perfection, nor was their nonexistence an imperfection. Imperfection occurs only when something is absent whose existence would be fitting, or through which perfection is attained, or which ought to exist, and so forth.

The Lord, Most High, is wise in His acts. He is the One who brings things forward and delays them. Whatever He brought forward, perfection lay in bringing it forward; and whatever He delayed, perfection lay in delaying it.

Likewise, whatever He endowed with particular attributes, He did so in accordance with wisdom, even if we do not know its details. Consider this in light of the things He brings into existence.

[The seventh argument]

It may be said:

Events cannot be beginningless, nor can they all exist simultaneously. If they existed simultaneously, they would not be events.

It is known that, when the choice is between