bring events into being without a purpose pertaining to Him; rather, that which constitutes the cause and wisdom behind their coming into being must subsist in Him,” then this must be affirmed.

It must then be said either that this entails an infinite regress or that it does not. If it is said that it does not, then no infinite regress follows, and the objectionable consequence is avoided. If it is said that an infinite regress necessarily follows, then, on this supposition, an infinite regress is not objectionable. For the supposition is that His acts may be explained by a reason that comes into being, and that this entails an infinite regress. It is well known that what is possible cannot entail something impossible. If it did, it would be impossible on account of something else, even if possible in itself. Yet the supposition is that it is possible without qualification, with no impossibility involved. Whatever is possible without qualification, with no impossibility involved, cannot entail something whose existence is impossible. Thus, on this supposition, an infinite regress is not impossible.

This answers the objection without committing to any particular position. Rather, we show that no objectionable consequence actually arises. The objection, however, rests on six premises: that pointlessness necessarily follows, and that it is ruled out; that the effect must be eternal, and that this is ruled out; and that an infinite regress necessarily follows, and that it is ruled out.

The proponent of the first position says: “I do not concede that pointlessness necessarily follows.” The proponent of the second position says: “I do not concede that the effect must be eternal.” The proponent of the third position says: