you call what is there a spatial locus, you are calling non-existence a spatial locus; this is their terminology.”

Now, sheer non-existence does not consist of existent things such that they could be described as identical or different.

If it is said: “Some people maintain that a spatial locus is an infinite, self-subsisting substance,” the reply is: If this view is correct, then an existent spatial locus has been established to have existed from eternity, thereby invalidating the argument founded upon denying this. If it is false, the argument is likewise invalidated, as explained above. Thus, the argument is invalid on either of two contradictory assumptions, establishing its invalidity in reality.

[Second ground]

It may be said: Why could spatial loci not be identical in essence?

As for his statement, “His occupying one rather than another would be contingent and would therefore require a determining factor,” the reply is:

Yes; and if it requires a determining factor, He gives preference to one over another through His power and will, just as some contingent possibilities are given preference over others. Likewise, He gives preference to creating the world in one spatial locus rather than another, although He could create it in a different locus. Likewise, He chose one measure rather than another, and one attribute rather than another, for what He created, although He could have created it with a different measure and attribute.

[Third ground]

It may be said: The preference for some spatial loci over others is a matter of agreement