assumption. If he arrives at complete negation, his resulting attribution of corporeality to the eternal being that is necessarily existent in itself is more extreme than any attribution of corporeality he denied. Thus, it is clear that reasoning of this kind—arguing for negation on the grounds that affirmation entails corporeality—neither nourishes nor relieves hunger.

[The response to those who adopt the second position, from several perspectives. The first]

The response to those who adopt the second position, from several perspectives.

The first

As for those who adopt the second position—the rigorous thinkers among those who deny the attributes, who say, “Revelation indicates only affirmation, but reason indicates negation”—they may be answered from several perspectives.

First, they may be told:

Our purpose here is to show that the rational evidence by which the truth of revelation is known does not entail a negation that contradicts revelation. It has already become clear that the prophets did not call people through this method that entails negation—the method of accidents—and that those who believed in them and recognized their truthfulness did not do so through this method. Consequently, even supposing that your rational argument contradicts revelation, that argument would not be the foundation upon which revelation rests, nor would revelation have contradicted the rational evidence by which its truth was established. This is precisely what we seek to demonstrate.

If you say, “We came to know the truth of revelation only through this method,” or, “We know the truth of revelation only through this method,” you are told:

As for your testimony about yourselves that you came to know the truth of revelation only through this method, you have thereby testified to your own error and your ignorance of the methods by which the prophets called their followers,