Abū Hāmid proceeded to criticize the method of Ibn Sīnā and others like him for establishing the Necessary Existent on two grounds.

The first:

The most this method establishes is a necessary existent. Yet it cannot rule out that this existent is a body except through their approach to divine oneness, which amounts to denying the attributes. That approach rests on composition itself, and Abū Hāmid has demonstrated the unsoundness of their argument on this matter.

Abū Hāmid made this point well. Before reading his discussion, I had written about the philosophers’ conception of divine oneness and their denial of the attributes, demonstrating the unsoundness of their argument from composition. I then found that Abū Hāmid had said things that agreed with what I had written.

This shows that Ibn Sīnā cannot use this method to refute the position of the natural philosophers who maintain that the celestial sphere is necessarily existent in its own right, although their position can be refuted by other methods.

For this reason, many later thinkers thought that Ibn Sīnā agreed with the eternalists