He said:
“One should therefore concede to Aristotle that the First Cause possesses the utmost completeness and perfection possible.”

[Response to Another Statement by Thābit ibn Qurra]

He may be told:

First, Aristotle did not establish a first cause that brings the world into existence, produces it, or serves as its efficient cause. He merely posited a final cause for it, without providing any proof. Thus, not only did he mention merely one component of a cause, but he also offered no proof for it. What completeness or perfection, then, did he establish for the First Cause?!

As for those who affirm the divine attributes, they say:

We affirm for the First the utmost completeness and perfection possible through the attributes of perfection and the acts we affirm for Him, glorified and exalted is He. We therefore have greater grounds for describing Him as perfect, in countless respects.

If someone asks, “Why, then, did those effects of His that occurred later not occur earlier?”

We reply:

This question arises on both views, so answering it is not our responsibility alone.

It may then be said:

What accounts for this is what you yourself invoke in the analogous case of events occurring later: for example, the fulfillment of the conditions that make it fitting—or possible—for an event to be brought about. Its nonexistence before then may be due to its impossibility, while its delay may be due to the absence of wisdom calling for its occurrence. For an act requires perfect power and perfect will, which necessarily entails wisdom.

As for his statement:

“Just as nature cannot delay its action upon receptive matter except because of an impediment, the same applies to the world if its existence has always been possible. Possibility plays the role of matter in its case.”