delayed behind the complete cause by an endless span of time, whereas a complete cause is never separated from its effect at all.
Rather, the dispute is whether the effect is simultaneous with the cause or follows immediately after it in time (1), being with it (2) as the second segment of time is with the segment preceding it. This is one of the matters people discuss, since they (3) agree that the effect is logically posterior to the cause (4) and is inseparable from it. Whether it is temporally contiguous with the cause or temporally simultaneous with it is a matter of debate among them (5).
The point here is that no event coming into existence in the world can have had its complete cause—which necessarily entails it—already complete (6) before it, with a separation between the two. How, then, could that cause precede it (7) by an endless span of time?
The furthest they go is to say that He is an eternal complete cause of whatever in the world is eternal, such as the celestial spheres; as for what comes into existence within the world, He becomes its complete cause only when it comes into existence.
They also say that the occurrence of the first is a condition for the occurrence of the second, like a person walking across one tract of ground after another, or like the sun’s motion, [by which] it traverses (8) one stretch after another. A moving object (9) does not traverse the second stretch until it has traversed the first; thus, its traversing