It may be said to you:

Yet you maintain that all events come into being without a newly arising cause. According to your position, every event occurs at some particular time; that time is therefore singled out for its occurrence without a newly arising determining cause. Charge them, then, with singling out one time rather than all others for an event to occur without a determining factor.

Yet your own position entails that each time is singled out for the events occurring within it without a determining cause; that each event has its particular attributes and measure without a determining cause; that each event has its particular time without a determining cause; and that all events come into being without a cause that brings them about. Thus, if what they have committed themselves to is false, you have committed yourself to many times as much, making your position still more unsound.

If it is not false, however, your argument for invalidating their position collapses. It therefore becomes clear that your attempt to invalidate their position, while holding the beliefs you hold, is unsound in either case. It is also clear that the sound principles on which you agreed with them provide stronger evidence against your position than against theirs. As for the unsound principles on which they agreed with you, if they contradicted themselves by failing to apply them consistently, your inconsistency is greater still, since you fail to apply your principles consistently across the board—sound and unsound alike.

This is explained by his statement:

“The Maker, whose existence is necessary, must stand in unvarying relations to times, to the things that proceed eternally from Him, and to whatever is intrinsically entailed by that. Otherwise, whatever differences are entailed would necessarily arise in those circumstances, and change would follow them.”

He means the motion of the celestial sphere and the change that follows it.