the Creator were a body, He would either be like other bodies or unlike them. If it is said that He is unlike other bodies, the dispute concerns wording rather than meaning; the method of refuting this is what we have already presented concerning His being a substance.

If it is said that He is like other bodies, this is impossible on eight grounds. Four are those we mentioned in establishing the impossibility of His being a substance: the first, third, fourth, and fifth. Four further grounds apply specifically to a body.”

I say: What he stated in refuting His being a substance is as follows: “The principal argument is to say: If the Creator were a substance, He would necessarily be either a substance like other substances or one unlike them. The first alternative is false on five grounds. If it is said that He is a substance unlike other substances, this concedes the point we seek to establish, for we deny only that He is a substance like other substances. If the matter comes down to applying a term, the dispute is merely verbal, and there is no cause for contention except over whether the Lawgiver has prescribed its use. It is evident that there is no way to establish such a prescription.”