the argument they derive from this verse, which they call the argument from mutual hindrance, this does not follow the pattern of either natural or scriptural proofs.

It does not follow the natural method because what they put forward is not a demonstrative proof. Nor is it scriptural or in keeping with the method of revelation, because the general public cannot understand what they say on this matter, let alone be persuaded by it.

For they say:

‘If there were two or more gods, they could disagree. If the two disagreed, there would be only three possibilities, with no fourth: either the will of both would be fulfilled; or the will of one would not be fulfilled while that of the other would; or the will of neither would be fulfilled.’

They say:

‘It is impossible for the will of neither to be fulfilled, because, if that were so, the world would be neither existent nor nonexistent. It is also impossible for the will of both to be fulfilled, because the world would then be both existent and nonexistent at once. The only remaining possibility is that the will of one would be fulfilled while that of the other would be frustrated. The one whose will is frustrated is powerless, and one who is powerless is not a god.’”