extended, nor can He be finite or infinite, just as you yourselves say that He is a self-subsisting being, the Originator of the world, named by the Most Beautiful Names, yet neither ‘finite’ nor ‘infinite’ can be predicated of Him. Rather, His essence admits neither the affirmation nor the negation of this. Nor does it admit being described as indwelling the world or as outside it. His essence therefore cannot be described as either within it or outside it, since it admits neither the affirmation nor the negation of these descriptions.”

This and similar statements constitute your position. If this position is correct, those who affirm His being above without affirming corporeality, or who affirm both His being above and corporeality while denying the consequences alleged to follow from it, could say concerning their position what you yourselves say when you affirm a self-subsisting being who originated the world and deny the consequences alleged to follow from that. For it is more evident to plain reason that those consequences necessarily follow from what they have affirmed than that these consequences necessarily follow from what these others have affirmed. If you can deny that necessary connection and claim that asserting it and declaring what you affirm to be impossible are judgments of imagination rather than reason, then your opponents can make the same claim with even greater justification.

This will be understood by anyone who grasps the true nature of the two groups’ positions and their rational arguments. When he compares the position of one group with that of the other, the soundness of the comparison becomes clear to him, and so does the fact that this affirmation