is greater than their assent to the existence of a being that exists in its own right, possesses attributes, cannot be pointed to, and is neither inside the world nor outside it.

Secondly, one may ask: Why do you say that it is impossible for Him to occupy space?

To your statement, “He must be either in motion or at rest,” one may reply: Why could He not be incapable of motion and rest, when either state presupposes His capacity for it?

If you say, “Everything that occupies space is capable of both,” you may be told: Our knowledge of this is like our knowledge that every being that exists in its own right and possesses attributes is either separate from another or shares the same location with it. If you allow the possibility of a being that exists in its own right yet is neither separate nor shares the same location, then allow the possibility of a being that occupies space yet is neither in motion nor at rest.

If you say, “Whatever occupies space either moves away from its spatial locus or does not move away from it; the former is motion, and the latter is rest,” you may be told: Not everything that occupies space has actual existence, for the world occupies space, yet it has no actually existing spatial locus. Whoever says that the Creator alone is above the world, or concedes to you that He occupies space, does not say that He is within an actually existing spatial locus.

In that case, the spatial locus has no actual existence. Thus, your statement, “He either moves away from it or does not,” is equivalent to saying, “He Himself either moves or does not.” This is precisely what you mean by saying, “He is either in motion or at rest.” This is using a proposition to prove itself.