As for its inclusion under the second method, this rests on the premise that a body is composed of indivisible atoms, or of matter and form. It would then either be contingent, according to those who use this to establish contingency, or have a temporal beginning, according to those who use it to establish temporal origination.

However, reasoning by this method rests on the premise that a body is composed either of indivisible sensible substances—that is, individual atoms—or of intelligible substances—that is, matter and form. This is disputed by the majority of rational thinkers, unlike the proposition that a body is never devoid of some kind of accident, which only a few dissenters dispute.

The first method rests on the impossibility of an infinity of temporally originated events. The second rests on the premise that whatever combines multiple properties must be contingent or have a temporal beginning. The third rests on the premise that whatever is particularized must have a particularizer separate from itself.

These three premises have been disputed by the majority of rational thinkers. Each of these methods is employed by the Jahmiyyah and the Mu‘tazilah, who deny the divine attributes and acts. They are also employed by those who deny acts subsisting in Him, but not His attributes.

As for the philosophers who affirm the pre-eternity of the world and deny the divine attributes, their fundamental argument rests on the method of composition, on the premise that whatever possesses attributes is composite; and when they argue