Even if you placed Him in the first category, among agents who put composite things together, that would be better than making Him an agent who produces motions.

But an agent who continually performs the act upon which the effect continually depends is more perfect than one upon whom the effect depends only when coming into being. Thus, if you made Him the agent who produces composition, with the effect continually depending upon Him, that would be better than making Him an agent who produces motion. How much more so, then, when you regard Him as an agent only insofar as He is imitated?

[Sixth Argument]

It may be said:

There is no created being in the world that can be observed to produce anything wholly separate from itself, whether an entity or an attribute. Someone who produces composition in other things—a builder, tailor, writer, or the like—does no more than put those bodies together. Yet many affirmationist theologians, such as al-Asharī and those who agree with him, say:

“His act consists only of what inheres in him, in the locus of his power; what occurs outside him is not his act.”

Those who affirm generated effects say:

“Rather, that composition is his act.”

The middle position is that the composition comes into being through his act, which inheres in him, together with the capacity of the assembled parts to accept and retain that composition. Hence, after being assembled, the parts no longer need the person who brought about their composition, because they retain it through the dryness inherent in them