He performs manifold acts, and diverse effects issue from Him—something they themselves concede. They also affirm that the act of a natural agent is uniform, whereas the act of a volitional agent is varied. Given that, it is clear that whatever is carried out with knowledge and will is more perfect than what occurs without knowledge or will; hence a human being is superior to lifeless matter. Accordingly, if analogy is admissible at all, it is more fitting to liken the Lord to that which acts through knowledge and choice than to liken Him to what acts without knowledge or choice. Why, then, have they compared the Lord of all worlds to inanimate objects while deeming it improper to compare Him to living, rational beings?
This misguidance has befallen them in the domain of His attributes and His acts alike. Concerning the attributes they say: “If we affirm that He is living, knowing, powerful, and willing, we have likened Him to the celestial or the human soul.” We reply: “If you strip Him of knowledge, life, power, and will, you have likened Him to inanimate things such as dust and water. If your sole aim is to flee from anthropomorphism, what you flee to is worse than what you flee from.”
Moreover, you claim that philosophy consists of resembling the Deity to the extent of one’s capacity, and that the celestial sphere resembles Him as far as it can. In so doing you grant His creatures the ability to resemble Him in certain respects. If resemblance to Him is impossible in every respect, it must also be impossible for His creatures. But if resemblance in some respects is permissible—or even obligatory—then He is more capable of it than His creatures. Thus, if partial resemblance is indeed possible, it is more reasonable that He Himself should create beings endowed with attributes of perfection that resemble Him in some measure than that He should enable a creature to produce in itself qualities that make it resemble Him—whether one holds that He creates the deeds of the creatures or not. On the first view, He is the creator of whatever resemblance to Him exists, and their argument collapses; on the second, the creature, without the Creator’s aid, would be able to bring about a likeness to the Lord, whereas the Lord Himself could not.
It is therefore evident that their maxim, “From the One only one proceeds,” provides no valid proof concerning God Most High, no matter what kind of analogy they employ.