[The sixth response]

It may be said:

The objection rests on the claim that the aggregate of existing things has a cause that is one of its constituent parts, namely the Necessary Existent. If the aggregate contains no necessary constituent part, the objection is invalid. This objection is advanced as a counterargument, for we have already stated that we know self-evidently that, if the aggregate of contingent causes has a cause, that cause must be the cause of each of them. We have also stated that this knowledge is self-evident and have demonstrated it beyond doubt.

Once it becomes clear that the validity of the objection entails the existence of the Necessary Existent, the Necessary Existent is established both on the supposition that the objection is valid and on the supposition that it is invalid. Since it is established under both suppositions—that of negation and that of affirmation—it is established in reality, which is the intended conclusion. This is clear to anyone who reflects upon it. All praise is due to Allah.

[The response may be presented in several ways]

The first:

It may be said: Either the Necessary Existent is supposed actually to exist, or it is supposed not to exist. If its existence in reality is supposed, the intended conclusion is established, and it is impossible for there to be anything in reality that negates its existence. If its nonexistence is supposed, the aforementioned objection to the proof of its existence must be invalid. Once the objection is invalid, the aforementioned proof of its existence is free of the counterargument; hence, what it establishes—namely, the Necessary Existent—must exist. Its existence therefore follows whether the objector supposes its existence or its nonexistence. And whatever