that whoever produces a thing also produces its inseparable attributes, since it is impossible to produce the thing without its attributes (1) that are inseparable from it.

Moreover, an essence stripped of attributes cannot possibly exercise any causal influence upon anything, still less upon its own attributes. For it can exercise causal influence only if it is living, knowing, and powerful (2). If it itself caused itself to be living, knowing, and powerful, it would be exercising causal influence without being characterized by those attributes. The plain dictates of reason establish that this is impossible. Indeed, its inseparable attributes are more perfect than anything else that exists. If an essence stripped of those attributes cannot exercise any causal influence upon any existent thing, how could it produce those attributes through that bare essence alone (3)?

Thus, it is evident that there is no causation here in any respect with regard to its attributes—unless someone merely chooses to call necessary entailment “causation,” as stated above.

At that point, he is told:

In matters of such magnitude, one cannot rely on mere words. Your calling the fact that an essence characterized by its inseparable attributes necessarily entails (4) them “causation” does not justify treating this as comparable to its bringing its creatures into being. Grant that you call every necessary entailment “causation.” Even so, your subsequent claim that the created effect is inseparable from its creator and producer is known by self-evident reason to be false, as the overwhelming majority of rational thinkers, ancient and later, have agreed. Nor can you identify any instance of this among existent things. Never has anything been known to originate another thing while being concurrent with it, such that the two are simultaneous in time,