These two premises have already been discussed, and those who invoke them have acknowledged their invalidity.

As for his statement:

“If He were finite on all sides, He would not be above all existing things, because there would be places above Him unoccupied by Him.”

This claim is groundless, because nothing exists there: neither a place nor anything else. Rather, according to one group, there is a void that is pure nonexistence and sheer negation, not an existing thing; alternatively, neither void nor filled space is said to exist there.

In either case, nothing exists there. Indeed, anyone advancing this argument should be told: “You say that nothing exists above the world and that nothing exists beyond it, even though you consider it finite. Why, then, must something exist above the Lord of the worlds?”

Then he said:

“You claim to argue from rational certainties, not dialectical premises. Suppose, then, that He is not above all existing things: where is your rational proof that this is impossible?”

[The fourth response]

Some of these proponents of negation ask others:

“Why do you say, ‘If He is infinite on all sides, then He intermingles with the world and the filth it contains—exalted is He above that’? Why could He not be infinite on all sides without intermingling?”

If they reply:

“Because positing something that can be pointed to, is infinite, and does not intermingle with the world is impossible according to clear reason.”

They should be told:

“Likewise, positing a self-subsisting being that cannot be pointed to and is not separate from anything else is impossible according to clear reason.”