the reply is: Some people dispute your claim, while others agree with you. Among those who agree, some say that everything subsisting in itself occupies space, and that they know of nothing subsisting in itself except what occupies space. Others say that they do know of something subsisting in itself that does not occupy space. Your argument is therefore valid only if you establish both that every subject possessing attributes occupies space and that a being exists which does not occupy space, so that these premises entail the existence of a being without attributes.

The vast majority of people reject this claim. Rather, they say that positing a being without any attributes—a bare essence—is like positing absolute existence that is neither determinate nor particularized. Anyone who conceives this recognizes its impossibility by rational necessity. They say that this can be conceived only in the mind, not in external reality; the mind can posit impossibilities, such as combining two contraries and two contradictories.

The combined response is to ask: What do you mean by saying that something occupies space? Do you mean that it is enclosed by an existing spatial region, that someone posits a non-existent spatial region for it, or that it is separate from other things?

If you mean the first, your claim is false and self-contradictory. For if bodies are finite, they cannot be within an existing spatial region. If they were finite yet within an existing spatial region, this would entail one body being within another body, and so on without end, within an existing spatial region, since that region itself is also included in this endless succession.