Moreover, if His perfection depended on that other, it would follow that His perfection depended on His bringing that other into being and on that other’s assistance in perfecting Him. Yet that other’s assistance in perfecting Him depends on Him, since both its being brought into existence and its actions depend on the Originator’s action and require no one else. It therefore follows that His perfection does not depend on anyone else.

Thus, to say that His perfection depends on His creation entails that it does not depend on His creation. Whatever entails its own negation is inherently false. Furthermore, every perfection possessed by that other comes from Him, and He is more entitled to perfection than it is. Even if His perfection were said to depend on it, His perfection would depend only on what comes from Himself; and that depends on Him, not on anyone else.

If it is said, “That other is not created, but is another necessarily existent being, eternal in its own right,” the reply is: If one of these two is the giver, and not the other way round, then that one is the Lord and the other is His servant.

If it is said, “Rather, each gives perfection to the other,” this entails “circularity in causation,” which is impossible. This is “circular dependence involving causal priority,” not “simultaneous, correlative dependence.” For the first cannot be perfect until the other makes it perfect, while the other cannot make it perfect until it is itself perfect, since whoever makes something perfect is more entitled to perfection. Yet the other cannot be perfect until the first makes it perfect. Necessarily, therefore, neither can be perfect. For if it were said that something cannot be perfect until it makes itself perfect, and cannot make itself perfect until it is perfect, that would be impossible. How much more so if it were said that it cannot be perfect until it makes perfect that which makes it perfect!

If it is said, “Each has another that perfects it, without end,” this entails an “infinite regress