the other—it would be impossible? And why do you say that the existence of two meanings or two things that are necessary and mutually inseparable is impossible?

This is like the Muʿtazilah’s claim: “If you affirm the attributes, you affirm a plurality of eternal beings.”

They are answered: If you mean that this entails a plurality of eternal deities who create all created things, then this alleged entailment is false. But if you mean that it entails a plurality of eternal attributes belonging to the eternal Deity, why do you say that this is impossible?

Most of what these deniers use to sow confusion consists of ambiguous, equivocal expressions. Once their meanings are explained and what is true in them is distinguished from what is false, the doubt disappears. It then becomes clear that the inescapable truth is the position of those who affirm the meanings and attributes.

[Fifth]

It may be said: Your statement, “The composite depends upon each of those parts, because it is necessarily impossible for the composite to exist without its parts,” contains nothing that establishes the composite’s dependence upon its parts. For the fact that it is impossible