to be outside it, to say that it is above it except in the same sense in which one says that it is below it. Thus, to posit something outside the encompassing spherical entity while also being above it is to combine two opposites.”

The reply is:

There are several responses to this.

First: If this statement is correct, your argument must be invalid; and if it is not correct, your argument must likewise be invalid. Its invalidity is thus established on either of these contradictory assumptions. It must therefore be invalid in reality, since the truth of the matter must fall under one or the other.

To explain: either it is correct to say that one part of the encompassing entity is above and another below, or it is not. If it is not, then the claim that what is outside it lies beneath any part of the world is false. Rather, if it is supposed to encompass the world, even by grasping it, it must be above it without qualification, and not below any part of the world. If, however, it is correct that one part is above and another below, then something may be separate from the world on its upper side, and thus be above it.

If it is said:

“Rather, when the encompassing entity is aligned with our heads, it is above, and when it is aligned with our feet, it is below. Thus, one part of it is always above and another below.”

The reply is:

On this assumption, what is above is whatever is over our heads. Accordingly, if something is separate from the world on the side of our heads rather than our feet, it remains above us at all times. This is precisely what was to be demonstrated.

The second response:

It may be said: Suppose that He encompasses the world and is above it from