And that condition comes either from Him or from another. If it comes from another, it follows that the Lord of the worlds depends upon another in His actions. If it comes from Him, it follows that He perpetually brings newly arising things into being.

Those newly arising things either occur without states subsisting in Him, or necessarily involve states subsisting in Him. The second alternative entails that He has always possessed power, been receptive, and acted, with acts subsisting in Him.

The first alternative is false. For if He Himself remains in one unchanging state from eternity and forever, with no state whatsoever subsisting in Him, His relation to all times and existing things would be the same. There would then be no greater reason to assign to one of two periods events differing from those of the other than to do the reverse.

Yet the assignment of different events to different times is an observed fact. Furthermore, an agent who brings things into being without an act subsisting in himself is inconceivable. Rather, this would entail that the act is identical with its product, the act of creation with the created thing, what the verbal noun denotes with what its grammatical object denotes, and causal efficacy with its effect.

We know necessarily that causal efficacy has real existence. If it is perpetual, it must perpetually subsist in His essence, and His essence must perpetually be characterized by it. Causal efficacy is an attribute of perfection. Thus, He has always been characterized by perfection, receptive to perfection, and inherently deserving of perfection.

This accords Him greater reverence and honour—glorified and exalted is He.

Through this approach and others like it, it becomes clear that the rational argument invoked by