Among the corporealists, there may be those who say that He is a body composed of indivisible atoms. They dispute the claim that such composition is impossible for Him, saying: “You have no argument for denying this other than the proofs you have advanced that bodies have a temporal beginning or are contingent, and all these proofs are invalid.” This has been discussed at length elsewhere.

They also disagree over other matters in which even those who do not say that He is a body dispute their position—for example, His being above the world, His having magnitude, or His possessing attributes that subsist in Him.

Those who deny the attributes say that these can subsist only in a body. The others may dispute this claim, wholly or in part; they also dispute the denial of what their opponents have termed a “body.” Thus, they dispute either the alleged entailment or the denial of what is entailed.

Once it is clear that all these matters come down to these three issues, consider the eight arguments al-Āmidī presented to deny that He is a substance, and four specifically concerning bodies.

[Al-Āmidī’s four arguments for denying that He is a substance, specifically concerning bodies]

The First Argument

His statement: “If He were a substance like other substances, then either He would be necessary in Himself or He would not. If He were necessary in Himself, all substances would necessarily share in being necessary in themselves, since they necessarily share in the meaning of