And these arguments are the proofs establishing this.

If it is said:

“If He were not susceptible to motion and rest, He would be like an incapacitated person,”

this can be established only if it is established that everything that can be pointed to is susceptible to motion and rest, and that everything that can be pointed to is a body.

This, in turn, can be established only if the position of those who say the following is disproved:

“He may be pointed to without being a body, or He may be above the Throne without being a body.”

Their position cannot be refuted unless the position of those who affirm a self-subsisting existent that cannot be pointed to is disproved. For, assuming the latter position to be correct, the former may also be correct. If reason allows the possibility of a self-subsisting existent that cannot be pointed to and is neither separate from nor in the same location as anything else, then a self-subsisting existent above His Throne that cannot be pointed to is also possible. This would be more readily conceivable than the former.

Thus, if refuting these thinkers’ position necessarily entails disproving the claimant’s position, their position cannot be refuted without disproving his own. Once his position is disproved, the argument offered to establish its validity is invalid.

It therefore becomes clear that the validity of this argument’s two premises necessarily entails the invalidity of the position of the claimant who invokes it. It cannot, therefore, be used to establish his position—which is what was to be demonstrated. If the argument is valid, it necessarily disproves his claim; if it is not valid, it cannot be used to establish his claim. Thus, in either case, it fails to establish the claim—which is what was to be demonstrated.

[Fourth Point]

It may be said:

Many speculative thinkers say: “Susceptibility to motion is not