They also say:

“An agent possessing power and choice, whether eternal or brought into existence, acts only while it remains possible for him not to act, and he gives preference to one of the two alternatives within his power over the other without any determining factor.”

The majority of rational thinkers have disputed this with them. The purpose here is not to demonstrate that the majority’s position is correct and theirs false. Rather, the point is that, whether their position is correct or false, they have no need to make it a premise in establishing the existence of the Maker.

If knowledge of the Maker can be established regardless of which position is adopted, that is better than establishing it on the assumption of a position disputed by many rational thinkers. They can establish His existence on the grounds that whatever comes into existence must have something that brings it into existence, whether or not one holds that its existence becomes necessary through that which brings it into existence. Thus, they have no need of that premise to establish His existence.

If, on the other hand, by saying:

“Either it comes into existence necessarily, or its coming into existence is possible,”

the speaker means that its coming into existence is necessary in itself, without anything bringing it about, then there is no doubt that this is false, and its falsity is known by rational necessity.

Its falsity is more evident than the fact that there is no reason for it to come into existence at one time rather than another. For whatever comes into existence is known not to be necessary in itself, since that which is necessary in itself cannot admit nonexistence. Whatever comes into existence was previously nonexistent; it is therefore impossible to say that it comes into existence while being necessary in itself.