Nor can anyone(1) legitimately do that, for self-evident truths(2) cannot be false; to undermine them is sheer sophistry. Yet they are forever censuring others(3) who contravene(4) matters far less weighty than this, as we shall note presently.

Thirty-sixth angle: One may say: Either you have(5) produced a proof that He is eternal, singular, and devoid of any multiplicity or variation, or you have not. If you have not, that claim collapses. If you have, there is no doubt that it is a theoretical proof, for this question does not belong to the self-evident(6) necessities. By contrast, the knowledge that the One in whom there is no multiplicity or variation cannot be many distinct realities, nor be qualified by diverse or contradictory attributes, is among the self-evident(7) necessities(8). What is necessary cannot be set against what is merely theoretical, for the necessary is the latter’s very foundation; to impugn it is to impugn that foundation, and the collapse of the foundation(9) entails the collapse of the argument itself.

Hence, pitting the theoretical against the necessary renders the theoretical void; and once the theoretical argument that contradicts this necessary truth is invalidated, it can never be deemed a sound proof at all—and that is precisely what was to be shown.