from a beginningless, complete cause. For every temporal event is preceded by nonexistence, so He is not a complete cause of any such event. Every conceivable time contains a temporal event, so at no time—past or future—is He a complete cause. It is therefore impossible for Him to be a complete cause, which is what was to be demonstrated. It follows that everything other than Him came into being, whether or not a succession of temporal events is affirmed.

As for their statement, “If He is not a beginningless, complete cause, things must come into being without a cause,” they may be answered:

“This follows only if He is not One who speaks when He wills and in whom voluntary acts subsist through His power—exalted is He. Otherwise, on this supposition, He has always been and will always remain able to act, speaking whenever He wills. In that case, whatever occurs of His words and acts through His will and power is itself the cause of what follows it.”

If they say, “This entails that temporal events subsist in Him,” they may be answered, first:

“According to your own position, temporal events may subsist in a beginningless being. Those speculative theologians who deny this do so only because they believe that whatever temporal events subsist in must itself have come into being. If this belief is correct, your claim that the celestial spheres are beginningless is invalid. If it is false, the argument of those who say that temporal events cannot subsist in a beginningless being is invalid. On neither supposition, therefore, can you maintain that temporal events cannot subsist in Him. Rather, you have denied this on the basis of your denial of the divine attributes. Your position denying the attributes is utterly unsound. The unsoundness of your proof for it has been explained elsewhere, and the falsity of what you have advanced has been demonstrated.”