is weak, and its weakness has become clear to anyone fair-minded. Moreover, it holds in every state, and no state is more entitled than another to require such precedence.

As for the effect being possible in itself and necessary through another, this does not contradict its existing perpetually through another, as I have pointed out.

As for supposing that the infinite constitutes an existent whole, just as each individual member exists at some time, this is a mistaken notion. A judgment that holds for each individual does not necessarily hold for every aggregate. Otherwise, it would be valid to say:

“The entirety of the infinite can come into existence, because each individual member can come into existence; possibility may thus be predicated of the whole just as it is predicated of each individual.”’

They said:

‘The infinitely many states they mention have never existed except one after another. There can be greater and lesser numbers of infinitely many nonexistent things. This does not undermine their being infinitely many while nonexistent.

As for any one of them depending on infinitely many others existing before it,