of His, as stipulated in the hypothesis, then His possession of them constitutes something that is itself a perfection, not a lack of perfection. Were that so, His possession of them would be deficient, which is impossible, as already stated.

[Refutation of his argument from several angles]

I say:

This is the mainstay of his argument, although he is among the most distinguished of these later thinkers. Yet it is one of the weakest arguments, as has been explained at length elsewhere.

[The first point]

This can be demonstrated from several angles.

The first point: His principal reliance here is on a premise that he claims commands consensus. Thus, the proposition is neither established by reason nor supported by a scriptural text, but rests instead on the alleged consensus. He himself regards consensus of this kind as probabilistic evidence. How, then, can such evidence establish a fundamental principle of this kind?

If this proposition rests on a premise established by consensus, it cannot be known before revelation is known, because consensus is evidence grounded in revelation. Yet they based their assertion that the Quran is uncreated on this proposition.

They said:

For if He had created it within His Essence, He would have been a locus for temporally originated things.

Thus, before this consensus is known, it remains conceivable that temporally originated speech and temporally originated acts of will, among other things, could subsist in His Essence. None of these questions, therefore, would be questions established by reason.

If they are not questions established by reason, they cannot be among the rational premises upon which