We have mentioned elsewhere that evidence is of two kinds: syllogisms and signs.

Syllogisms indicate only a universal meaning, not a particular reality. Thus, if one says:

“This has come into being.
Everything that has come into being has a beginningless originator.”

Or:

“Every contingent being must have a necessary being.”

This indicates only a beginningless being whose existence is necessary in itself; it does not identify that particular being. Indeed, the mere conception of such a being does not preclude multiple beings from answering to that conception.

Even supposing it is known that this being is one and admits of no partner, His particular identity remains unknown. His particular identity must therefore be known by some other means. Signs, by contrast, point to Him in particular. Yet a sign’s serving as evidence for Him in particular is conditional upon prior knowledge of Him: without such knowledge, one would not know that this sign necessarily implies Him.

It is thus clear that human nature contains knowledge of the Creator Himself, enabling one to distinguish Him from everything else, as Abū Muhammad ibn ‘Abd and others have mentioned. Accordingly, anyone whom one seeks to know through evidence must already be apprehended in some way before one seeks evidence for him or for some of his attributes.

As for that of which the soul has no awareness whatsoever, it cannot be an object of its inquiry. And when something is an object of its inquiry, nothing can serve as evidence for it until it is known that it necessarily follows from the realization of