the same, with no factor within himself favoring either kind over the other, or his soul must itself favor one of the two.

If the former is the case, neither kind could arise except through a determining influence external to him. Now suppose there are two such external influences: one favoring truthfulness, which benefits him, and the other favoring falsehood, which harms him. Either the two influences are evenly balanced, or one outweighs the other. If they are evenly balanced, neither outcome could occur. Yet this contradicts what is necessarily known: we know that whenever anyone is offered the choice between being truthful and benefiting, or lying and suffering harm, his innate nature inclines him toward truthfulness and benefit. If one of the two must prevail, then the predominance of harmful falsehood—assuming the two determining influences to be equal—is even more clearly impossible than a balance between the two. It follows, then, that when the two determining influences are evenly balanced, truthfulness and benefit must prevail for him. This is what is meant by believing the truth and desiring good.

It is thus established that human beings possess, within their innate nature, a faculty that inclines them to believe the truth and desire what is beneficial. Is acknowledging the Maker’s existence, knowing Him, and believing in Him, then, the truth or its opposite? The latter is known with certainty to be false, so the former must be true.

There must therefore be something within human beings’ innate nature that inclines them to know the Maker and believe in Him.

Furthermore, once His existence is acknowledged, either loving Him is more beneficial to the servant, or not loving Him is. The latter is known to be false. If the former is more beneficial to him, then love of what benefits him is part of his innate nature.