what it has brought into being! If, then, you acknowledge that the celestial sphere was created, affirming its Maker would commit you to no more than this—namely, that He would attain perfection through the acts He brings into being, and that those acts could have existed from eternity. Whatever they would ultimately be committed to—whether acts arising in time and subsisting in His essence, His being a body, or anything else—is likewise entailed by your position if you say that the celestial sphere is eternal and necessarily existent. Thus, if every objectionable consequence entailed by affirming the Maker is also entailed by denying Him, then denying Him is certainly false, and this argument is unsound. This is the point at issue here.

As for demonstrating that the celestial sphere cannot independently bring about the events occurring in the world, that belongs to another discussion, since the purpose here is to expose their inconsistency. Nevertheless, the matter is plain and clear: all recognized rational thinkers agree that the celestial sphere does not independently bring about the events that occur. It is impossible for any created thing independently to bring into being something newly originated and separate from itself. This belongs to another discussion and constitutes an independent proof of immense importance for the existence of the Maker, exalted is He.

The same argument applies against them under the “second supposition,” namely, that these motions serve no purpose.

The reply is:

Your own reasoning commits you to holding that the eternal, necessarily existent being performs acts continually and unceasingly without any purpose. Yet you have said that this is aimless action, and that aimless action on the part of a wise being is