“His essence necessarily entails this knowledge, conditional upon His doing what He has done,” this would not imply that He depends on anything other than Himself for His knowledge.

As for his statement:

“This arises only from drawing an analogy between the unseen and the observable.”

The response is:

Everything that you, your associates, and the theologians say on this subject necessarily involves a universal premise encompassing both the unseen and the observable. Were it not for what is found in the observable realm, nothing whatsoever in the unseen could be conceived, let alone its governing principles known. If you invalidate this, all your arguments become invalid.

As for his statement:

“Just as an agent undergoes no change when one of its effects comes into existence, neither does knowledge when its effect comes into existence.”

The response to him is:

You have invalidated the theologians’ proof for this premise upon which they based their analogy, yet you have offered no proof of your own for it. They based it on the claim that whatever does not precede temporal events is itself temporally originated. But this has been shown to be false. You therefore allow temporal events to subsist in that which is eternal. Accordingly, you cannot rule out the eternal agent’s acquiring a new state when acting. Indeed, you have explained in several places that temporal events cannot intelligibly proceed from their originator without this.

As for his statement:

“If no change occurs there, it does not follow that He fails to know an existing thing as it is at the moment it comes into existence.”

The response is:

This objection applies more forcefully to you than to the theologians, because you have pressed them to account for knowledge that what was to occur has occurred. Yet it is well known that knowledge of what we intend to do is not knowledge that it will occur, nor knowledge that it has occurred.