When one reflects on these considerations and understands them, it becomes self-evident that the position of these philosophers is unsound, and that the Maker of the world cannot be an eternal, sufficient cause that produces effects merely by His essence. Rather, He must be an agent who brings things into existence successively, one after another, and that is possible only if He acts by His will and power—the very conclusion we sought to prove.

Know, moreover, that what I have just quoted represents the view of their later proponents, such as Ibn Sīnā and his peers, and it is better than the view of their predecessors, like Aristotle. For Aristotle, in his work Metaphysics—the summit of their wisdom and learning—relied in proving the First Cause solely on the notion of “desirous motion.” After arguing that the motion of the celestial sphere is driven by yearning and volition, and that whatever moves through yearning and volition must have an object it seeks—its beloved and desired end—he inferred that there must be a final cause that is this beloved, desired object. They further claim that the heavens move to imitate that cause, just as the follower in prayer moves after his imam. Sometimes they say that the sphere seeks to emulate the First Principle; at other times they say it seeks to emulate the Intellect, while the Intellect in turn seeks to emulate the Eternal.