but claim only conclusions reached through rational inquiry.

Those who affirm say:

We have rational arguments, together with innate, self-evident truths and certain evidence from prophetic revelation.

Furthermore, it may be said:

If the disputants who affirm say, “Our position is known self-evidently,” they cannot be challenged by means of a proposition established through reasoning, for conclusions reached through reasoning cannot undermine necessary truths. Likewise, a sophist’s reasoning is not accepted as a valid challenge to what people say is known self-evidently, nor is his mere assertion accepted against his opponent. Rather, in matters of innate, necessary knowledge, recourse is to people whose innate dispositions remain sound, unaltered by inherited beliefs and desires.

It is known that this premise is firmly rooted in the innate dispositions of all people whose dispositions have not been altered by some conjecture or desire.

The proponents of negation do not dispute that this is rooted in the innate disposition. They claim, however, that it is a judgment of estimation and imagination, and that the judgments of estimation and imagination are accepted only in matters accessible to the senses, not in matters apprehended by the intellect.

They say:

The error of estimation and imagination in this matter becomes evident when premises entailing the opposite of their judgment are conceded to the intellect. For example, when premises entailing the existence of a being that is neither a body nor in any spatial direction are conceded to the intellect, their original judgment is then known to be false.

Those who affirm say:

This argument is invalid for several reasons: