First:

Your position on this matter is even more untenable than your assertion of an unceasing succession of events, and your argument for it is utterly unsound.

If you say:

Our opponents among the Muʿtazilah, the Ashʿarīs, and others concede this to us.

The reply is:

They conceded to you that acts performed through His will and power cannot subsist in His essence only because they held that events cannot subsist in Him. They ruled this out only because it would entail such events occurring successively in Him. And they rejected a succession of events in the Eternal only because they believed that events without a beginning are impossible.

If this position is false, they have no proof for that denial.

They may therefore say to you:

If this argument is sound, your position is invalid, and it follows that events have a beginning. If it is unsound, then our position, on which we based our denial of acts, is invalid. On this supposition, you cannot bind us to the claim that events do not subsist in the Eternal, since we based it only on a premise they consider false.

The most you can do here is charge us with inconsistency and say:

You must either affirm an unceasing succession of events or admit that events can subsist in the Eternal.

We reply:

If affirming their unceasing succession is the truth, we will accept it and abandon the other position. This would bring us two benefits:

The first is agreement with the rational proofs you have presented for it.

The second is agreement with the divine texts, for opposing which we have declared our fellow believers innovators.