Rambam explains the apparent references in Ecclesiastes that seem to indicate that the laws of nature are not forever. In Chapter 29 he begins his analysis of the verses in prophets that seem to discuss that the universe will not always exist.

In 26, Rambam explains the opinion expressed by Rabbi Eliezer which seems to suggest that the world was created out of a primordial substance. In 27 Rambam discusses whether or not, according to the Torah, the universe will last forever.

Rambam explains why the Torah is incompatible with Aristotle's view of the eternity of the universe, and why the Torah cannot be reinterpreted to be consistent with his views.

Rambam describes the confused state of astronomy in his time, as the Aristotelian model of physics simply cannot explain the motions of the stars and planets. Even Ptolemy's attempt to explain everything is inadequate. Rambam muses that some things humans may never be able to figure out.

Rambam describes how Aristotle's science doesn't work to explain the heavens above the sphere of the moon. Rambam emphasizes that neither his assertion that the word was created, or the assertion of Aristotle that the world is eternal could be proven. However, there are more doubts associated with Aristotle's view. Rambam describes how to choose when confronted by two conflicting viewpoints.

Rambam explains clearly Aristotle's opinion that everything is the way it is because it has to be, and that it has always been this way. This means that even God had to make the universe the way it is. He also explains that once you say that the world is eternal and not created, no amount of word games can change the fact that an eternal universe means it had to be this way.

Rambam describes why it makes more sense to say that the complex particularization we see in the world is the way it is because a Creator made it this way for a purpose, and not because it has to be this way, as Aristotle argued.

Rambam argues that postulating that there is purpose to why the universe is the way it is and a creator is a better argument than claiming, as Aristotle did, that things are this way because that's how they have to be.