He also said:

“For the celestial sphere and all other natural bodies have always depended for their existence and subsistence upon the First Principle, meaning the First Mover. The form of each is its particular motion, and its particular motion constitutes its substance: when that motion ceases, its existence ceases. Thus, the First Mover is the cause of the existence of this motion.”

He said:

“This, then, is preferable to the First Cause being the cause of the world’s existence at a particular time.”

He may be answered as follows:

You have stated only that a moving body cannot exist without its motion. Even if this is granted, it does not establish at all that the First Mover brings that body into being or acts as its efficient cause. Indeed, it does not even establish that the body has an end separate from itself. You have merely asserted this.

Certainly, if motion is established to be voluntary, it must have an object of will. Whether that object is separate from the moving thing or not, however, requires a further proof, which you have not supplied. Even if you establish this, it follows only that moving things depend upon it. Its being a condition of their existence does not entail that it brings them into being or acts as their efficient cause. For a final cause, merely as such, is not the agent that brings things into being. This is necessarily evident and agreed upon by all rational people; nor have they claimed that it is.

But if someone other than them were to suggest that the First could be both a final cause and an efficient cause, we would say:

Yes, but this overturns what they have constructed, since it would then be an agent that brings originated events into being, which they reject. It would thus have two aspects: being an object of will and love, and being an agent that brings things into being.

If this were acknowledged as true, it would invalidate their principles and doctrine.

Muslims do not deny that Allah is the Lord and God of everything, for He is, in