by virtue of its essence, understood in this sense, necessarily entails the effect that it necessitates and requires. Thus, if the Originator of the universe were a cause that necessitates by virtue of His essence, as thus construed, it would follow that nothing in the universe could ever come into being, which is contrary to observation. Their doctrine of a cause that necessitates by virtue of its essence therefore entails denying His attributes, denying His acts, and denying that anything in the universe comes into being. The falsity of all this is well known.

Even more false is that they held Him to be a single, simple being and said:

“Only one proceeds from Him.”

They then resorted to contrivances to explain how multiplicity proceeds from Him—contrivances that reveal their great (1) bewilderment and ignorance concerning this subject. They say, for example:

“The first emanation is the First Intellect. It exists, is necessary through another, and is possible in itself. It thus has three aspects. From it proceeded, by virtue of its necessary existence, another intellect; by virtue of its existence, a soul; and by virtue of its possibility, [a sphere. Sometimes, however, they say: by virtue of its existence, the form of the sphere, and by virtue of its possibility,] (2) its matter.”

They disagree concerning the celestial soul: Is it a substance separate from the sphere, [or] (3) an accident subsisting in it (4)?

People have therefore gone to great lengths to demonstrate the falsity of their discourse. The single, simple being they postulate cannot conceivably exist anywhere but in the mind, not in external reality.

Moreover, their statement, “From the one, only one proceeds,” is a universal proposition. Even if they knew that it held true in [some] (5) cases, it would not follow that it was universal except through analogical inference. Yet how could this be so when they know of no single thing from which anything has proceeded?