If they say, “It is the soul’s hatred of prime matter,” this is of the same kind as their claim that the cause of the world’s coming into being was the soul’s love of prime matter. For if it could come into being through the soul’s love, without the Lord Most High choosing it, it could likewise break apart through the soul’s hatred, without the Lord choosing it.

As for the others (1), they affirm that the world came into being. If they deny the Maker altogether, they maintain that temporal events occur (2) without anyone bringing them about. If they affirm the Maker, they maintain that He brought this order into being without any newly arising cause, if they say (3): “The Lord was not moving those substances before they became ordered.”

If, however, they say that He was moving them before they became ordered and then combined them, they affirm a Maker and the temporal origination of this world. Their position is therefore better than that of those who maintain that this world is beginninglessly eternal.

Their position may then be understood in either of two ways. The first is that they affirm that some particular thing within the world is itself eternal. Their position would thus amount to a partial version of the position of those [who hold that this world is beginninglessly eternal. It is of the same kind as the position of those who affirm the five eternal entities, insofar as they affirm a specific eternal entity other than the celestial spheres] (4). It is also of the same kind as the position of the proponents of the celestial spheres (5), insofar as they affirm temporal events that have always occurred and will always continue to occur, if they maintain that those substances have always been in motion.

If, instead, they say, “Rather, they were at rest and then began to move,” their position is of the same kind as that of those who affirm the five eternal entities. Whatever demonstrates the falsity of both those positions therefore demonstrates the falsity of their position as well.