I say:

This rests on the conception of divine oneness held by Ibn Sīnā and those philosophers who agreed with him, which entails denying the divine attributes.

The great majority of rational thinkers among Muslims, Jews, Christians, and ancient and later philosophers challenge what this argument entails. It is neither the method of Aristotle and the ancient philosophers nor that of Ibn Rushd and other later philosophers like him. Indeed, most people regard this approach as one of the most unsound positions, judged by both revealed religion and reason.

As for the first approach, most adherents of religious traditions and most philosophers likewise regard it as false and contrary to revealed religion and reason.

The third approach is to infer the existence of the Maker from the contingency of attributes, whether bodies are necessary, eternal, or contingent and temporally originated. This rests on the premise that bodies are alike; it is invalid according to most rational thinkers. It rests on two premises:

The first is that each body’s possession of its particular attributes can only be due to a cause separate from it.

The second is that this cause can only be a determining agent that is not a body.

I say:

The disagreement among rational thinkers over these two premises is well known, as are the counterexamples and flaws to which they are subject, and most people’s rejection of what they entail.