At this point, it may be said:

Either one maintains that affirming the attributes and actions established by scriptural evidence entails that the one possessing them is contingent and temporally originated, and that rational proofs establish this implication of temporal origination or contingency—as those who deny these attributes maintain—or one does not.

If this is not maintained, or if it is said that no rational evidence establishes it, then there is no opposing argument.

But if it is maintained that reason does indeed establish that the one possessing these attributes is contingent or temporally originated, then we may either demonstrate in detail the invalidity of that opposing argument, or say:

Reason has established the Messenger’s truthfulness, and it is known that he affirmed these attributes and actions. Therefore, an argument denying them cannot be sound, because sound proofs cannot contradict one another. Thus, the better one understands both the scriptural evidence affirming them and the weakness of the arguments advanced by those who deny them, the better one understands this reasoning.

The invalidity of these opposing arguments may therefore be known either in general or in detail, just as the invalidity of sophistical arguments is known. Whoever knows something with certainty knows conclusively that whatever contradicts it is false, even without knowing in detail why those arguments are invalid. Thus, whoever knows that the Messenger is truthful and that he has stated something knows conclusively that no conclusive proof can establish its negation.

[The sixth argument]

Those who believe that their own reasoning should take precedence over the words of Allah and His Messenger habitually invoke this principle in matters concerning Allah’s being above, the attributes described in revelation, and similar teachings found in the Quran and Sunnah.