This, then, is a demonstrative answer. The answer based on your own premises is that your statement, “Everything possessing attributes is enclosed by an existing spatial region,” entails the existence of infinitely many bodies. Yet you regard this as false, for the universe occupies space and possesses attributes, but is not within an existing spatial region.

If you say, “By this I mean something non-existent,” you are told: “That is nothing, and whatever is placed in nothing is not placed in anything.” It would thus be as though you said that what occupies space is not within anything else. In that case, we do not grant you that it is impossible for the Lord to occupy space in this sense.

Likewise, if you explain it as being separate and distinct from other things, denying the necessary implication would be impossible.

If you say, “Proof has established that whatever is of this kind must have had a beginning, because whatever is of this kind cannot be free of temporal occurrences and accidents, or has a particular magnitude or attribute, or has one thing within it distinguishable from another—and this constitutes composition,” then the discussion returns to these three grounds, which are known to form the basis of false argumentation.

The invalidity of this has been demonstrated in several ways; and in that case, in several ways; and in that case, you cannot deny anything among the disputed matters except by denying that. The discussion therefore returns to denying that.

As for the second argument, it is the claim that an attribute can subsist in a substance only because the substance occupies space.