for if one time rather than another may be singled out for something to come into being without a newly arising cause, the foundation of the argument collapses.

If that is not possible, then His necessary concomitants can be distinguished by an event occurring within them or proceeding from them at one time rather than another only because He Himself is distinguished by an event occurring within Him or proceeding from Him at one time rather than another. Otherwise, those concomitants would not be His necessary concomitants.

One of two alternatives is therefore unavoidable:

Either the things necessarily concomitant with Him are not in fact necessary concomitants, in which case events originated directly from Him without intermediaries. This refutes their position all the more decisively.

Or those things necessarily concomitant with Him cannot be singled out at one time rather than another for an event to occur within them or proceed from them unless they are specifically assigned this. For if they were thus distinguished without His singling them out, this would entail something coming into being without an originator, which is impossible.

Whenever the concomitants’ being singled out for an event to occur within them or proceed from them is due solely to their being so specified, His relation to times and events must vary, just as the relation of the concomitants does.

This is inescapable for them, and demonstrates the falsity of their position with necessary certainty to anyone who understands it. For the foundation of their position is that change arises from what does not change. Yet this contradicts what they have said.

They therefore face two alternatives:

If they allow something changing to arise from what does not change, they cannot