as individual entities, it would be possible to preserve them (1) in forms that are likewise beginningless. They therefore could not undergo transformation from one state to another, but this contradicts observation. If, on the other hand, their individual entities cannot be beginningless, the desired conclusion follows.

If it is said:

“The one is possible whereas the other is not,”

that would be mere obstinate denial.

If it is said:

“What necessitates their transformation is the motion of the celestial spheres,”

the reply is:

It is known by necessity that the celestial spheres can move (2) without the elements undergoing transformation, just as the highest sphere can move without the second sphere undergoing transformation. Supposing the second and third spheres to undergo transformation or to remain as they are (3) is no different from supposing the elements to undergo transformation or to remain as they are. It cannot be said:

“The one is intrinsically possible (4), but the other is not.”

Thus, it is known that this is due to an external factor pertaining to the effects that depend upon the Agent’s will and wisdom.

This is beyond dispute. We do not dispute that bringing a thing into being entails (5) bringing its necessary concomitants into being and precludes the existence of its opposites, or that the wise purpose intended by bringing something into being may be subject to conditions and impediments. Thus, the Creator, whose wisdom required bringing the various kinds of animals, plants, and minerals into existence, likewise required their materials (6) to pass from one state to another. The point, however, is that neither of the two bodies possesses an essence that necessitates—