His capacity as Lord, the Creator, the Originator, and the Agent; and in His capacity as God, He is the One worshipped, adored, and loved.

Yet this position held by Muslims contradicts and invalidates their position. Thus, their position is shown to be false both on their own account and on the account given by Muslims.

It therefore becomes clear that his statement, “What is best in the case of the First is what actually obtains, namely that it is the cause of the existence of every existing thing,” rests entirely on mere assertion and falsehood.

The assertion is his claim that a moving thing must have an object of love separate from itself.

The falsehood is his statement that this is the cause of the moving thing’s existence. It is merely a condition and, at most, one component of the cause of its existence.

Even if all the premises are granted—that the celestial sphere moves voluntarily, that something moving voluntarily cannot exist without its motion, and that its motion must have an object of love separate from itself—this establishes only that the latter is a condition of its existence, not the complete cause of its existence. What, then, if all three premises are said to be false, as explained elsewhere?

He then said:

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

He said:

“This would necessarily mean that existing things once had no existence whatsoever and were then brought into existence. It would follow that the world’s existence has another cause, either sharing with the First Cause in bringing it into existence or standing above the First Cause. For if, in bringing the world into existence, the First Cause is subject to no factor whatsoever, and there is no cause here other than its own essence that assists or prompts the First Cause to bring the world into existence, nor any cause that holds it fixed