bringing events into existence and not bringing them into existence, bringing them into existence is more perfect. Yet this is possible only if any particular event did not exist from eternity.

That being so, this would amount to making a thing both existent and nonexistent. Not doing this, or His power not extending to it, is therefore not to be called an attribute of imperfection. Rather, imperfection consists in being unable to bring it into existence. If He is able to do so, He is characterized by the perfection that alone is possible. Likewise, the One who brings successive things into existence is characterized by the only perfection possible with respect to their coming into existence.

[The eighth argument]

It may be said:

There is no doubt that events are observable and that they have an originator who brought them into existence.

Their originator either brings them into existence through an act performed by His choice and subsisting in Him, or they arise from Him one after another without any act subsisting in Him or anything occurring from Him. It is known that, if both were possible, the first would be more fittingly attributed to Him, since it characterizes Him by an attribute of perfection, unlike the second. How much more so, then, when the second is impossible, for events cannot come into existence without a cause that itself comes into existence.

If the agent’s state before their occurrence is the same as His state during and after their occurrence, and the events come into existence in both cases, then the agent has neither acted nor brought anything into existence. Rather, they have come into existence on their own.

This argument has been set out at length elsewhere, and the invalidity has been demonstrated of the view of