on this subject, in which he posited the five eternal entities. This argument is used to establish the eternity of the world, sometimes while affirming a necessitating cause and sometimes without doing so.

As for the former, they said:

If the world had been brought into existence, its originator would have to be an agent acting by choice. This, however, is impossible for two reasons.

First: That choice must either serve a purpose or serve no purpose. If it serves a purpose, this is untenable for two reasons.

The first is that the existence of that purpose must be preferable to its nonexistence for Him; otherwise, it would not be a purpose. If its existence is preferable for Him, He would be acquiring perfection through creating the world, which is impossible.

If it is said: He did this not for a purpose benefiting Himself, but for a purpose benefiting another—namely, doing good to others—and this avoids the objection.

The reply is: Doing good to others must either be preferable, with respect to His own essence, to refraining from it, or not. If the two are equal, it would not be a purpose; if they are unequal, the same objection returns.

The second is that when someone acts for the sake of another, the agent is inferior to