[The Forty-Fourth Argument]

It may be said:

The rational arguments claimed to be the foundation of transmitted revelation and to conflict with it are not prerequisites for knowing the authenticity of transmitted revelation. They therefore cannot be its foundation; indeed, they are themselves invalid.

The leading speculative thinkers among the theologians and philosophers have acknowledged this. These approaches amount to two or three methods:

The argument from accidents, which infers that whatever possesses them—or some of them, such as motion and rest—has a temporal beginning.

The argument from composition, which infers that whatever is composite is contingent or has a temporal beginning.

These two methods encompass the arguments presented on this subject.

The third is the argument from particularization, which infers that whatever is particularized is contingent or has a temporal beginning. This may be regarded as a separate method, or it may be included under the first.

The argument from the combination and separation of atoms—according to those who hold that a body is composed of indivisible atoms—falls under both the first and second methods.

It falls under the first on the premise that atoms are never devoid of combination or separation, just as a body—indeed, even an atom—is never devoid of motion or rest.