impossible. Whatever answer you give to this objection in that case, you could give yourselves the same answer if the eternal, necessarily existent being were the Maker of the celestial sphere; indeed, the objectionable consequence would then be less serious even by your own account. Would you then abandon the less objectionable position for the more reprehensible one—and to Allah belongs the highest example—declaring Him, if He is an eternal, existent Maker, above attaining perfection through His acts or acting aimlessly, only to make Him nonexistent?! Any existent being one might suppose is better than a nonexistent one. Thus, rather than ascribe one kind of deficiency to Him, you have ascribed to Him that which encompasses every deficiency. You have then ascribed to something other than Him the attributes of perfection—necessary existence and eternity—while also ascribing those deficiencies to it. The combination of these deficiencies and perfections is therefore inescapable on your position. You have gained nothing but complete negation and denial, without any evidence whatsoever.

The unsoundness of their argument and their inconsistency in it have thus become apparent in several respects:

First:

The very grounds on which they denied Him entail a corresponding objection against what they affirm as an eternal, necessarily existent being: the observable celestial sphere.

Second:

They sought to declare Him above acquiring a new perfection through His acts, or above acting aimlessly, yet they made Him more deficient than one who attains perfection and acts aimlessly. It is well known that, if an agent is supposed to attain perfection through his acts, he would be better than a nonexistent being. If this were supposed of the celestial sphere or anything else, no rational person would doubt that it was better than a nonexistent being. Thus, the denial of His existence to which they resorted was worse than denying some of the things they considered perfections. Reflect on this as well.

Likewise, if a perfect existent being is supposed to perform an act without any purpose of His own, and it is said that He acts aimlessly, He is still more perfect than nonexistence, which is nothing at all. For one who acts without