If you say, “Whatever loves something other than itself is deficient and needs that other thing,” there are four ways to answer you.

First:

Why could it not love itself, with its love for anything else being subordinate to that, just as you speak of the celestial sphere’s love and will in terms of primary and secondary intention?

Second:

Why could it not love something other than itself that it has produced and fashioned? If it exercises will, while the other is an effect fashioned by it and is contingent, then its will and love would concern only its own effects and creations, which depend upon it in every respect. This entails no dependence on anything that is independent of it in any respect.

Clearly, this is better than your assertion that the celestial sphere needs it only insofar as it is an object of love. For the former affirms the celestial sphere’s dependence upon it in every respect, and this more fully expresses perfection.

Third:

Even supposing that it loves and wills something other than itself, and that this other thing also needs it because it cannot subsist without it, the most this would entail is that each depends upon the other for its subsistence. Clearly, although Muslims declare Allah free of this, it is still better than your position, which entails that the celestial sphere has no originating agent, despite its need for the object of its love. For this posits two things, each of which is an agent for it, with one loving the other. This is closer to equity and possibility, if such a thing is possible. Otherwise, it is closer to impossibility. For both positions entail affirming two things that have no agent; one position makes one of them the lover and the other the beloved, whereas the second makes each both lover and beloved.