its cause in time, while the Lord is a fully efficacious cause from eternity. This would entail that nothing comes into being in the world.

Another response is to say:

Infinite regress is possible according to your own principles, so the argument is not demonstrative but dialectical. Assuming it is valid, it commits us to one of two positions: either preference without a determining factor or infinite regress. Otherwise, we would have contradicted ourselves by denying both. Yet the possibility of contradiction on our part entails that one of our two positions is false. Why, then, do you say that our false position is our denial of preference without a determining factor, when we agree that such preference is invalid?

Our false position might instead be our denial of an infinite regress in effects—a denial contested by some of our fellow Muslims, as well as by you. If that is so, it is preferable for us to adopt a position on which we agree with our fellow Muslims and with you, and which invalidates your argument for the eternity of the world, rather than a position opposed by both groups and on which your argument for the eternity of the world rests.

The Third Response: The Combined Response

This is to say: If an infinite regress in the attainment of complete causal efficacy is possible, the argument is invalid, for it would then be possible to bring into being