[Al-Rāzī’s Third Argument in Lubāb al-Arba'īn]

Al-Rāzī said:

“The third argument: If He could be pointed to, then, if motion and rest were possible for Him, He would have come into being, as established earlier in the discussion of temporal origination. Otherwise, He would be like a disabled person unable to move—a deficiency far above which He is exalted.”

[Responses to Him: First Point]

It may be said that these thinkers’ refutation of the argument from motion and rest has already been presented. Al-Rāzī himself likewise refuted it in his purely rational works, and refuted every argument advanced by the advocates of negation, without raising any objection to those refutations. Al-Āmidī, al-Urmawī and others also refuted it.

[Second Point]

Some maintain:

“Although He can be pointed to, He cannot be described in terms of motion and rest, nor their opposites.”

This parallels their own assertion:

“He cannot be described in terms of being inside or outside, separation or co-location, or similar pairs of opposites.”

If the former are told:

“Affirming something that can be pointed to but is not susceptible to these descriptions is inconceivable,”

they reply:

“This is more intelligible than affirming a self-subsisting existent that cannot be pointed to.”

When the latter are told:

“He must be either separate or co-located,”

they reply:

“These are properties of a body. If an existent is posited that is not susceptible to them, it is described as neither separate nor co-located.”

The former then reply to them:

“Being described as in motion