It may be replied: This is the basis of your argument for denying the attributes, and its invalidity has been demonstrated in several ways.

This argument is not confined to knowledge; rather, they use it to deny all the attributes. It is among the most unsound arguments, as has been explained repeatedly, although it has perplexed groups of speculative thinkers and led them to some of the doctrines of the people of Hell. Its invalidity has been demonstrated by explaining that this is not really composition, but rather an essence possessing attributes inseparable from it. The term “part” does not mean a coming together after separation, the possibility of separation, or anything becoming detached from something else. Rather, it means the existence of multiple meanings. This is precisely the point in dispute, and there is no evidence for denying it; rather, the evidence supports affirming it.

The term “dependence” may mean mutual inseparability, which is true here and entails nothing objectionable. It may also mean an effect’s dependence on an efficient cause, which is false here. If it means an attribute’s dependence on its subject—which they call an effect’s dependence on a receptive cause—there is nothing objectionable in that.

The expression “two distinct things” may mean two separate entities, which is impossible here. It may also mean two things one of which can be known without the other being known, which is true. This kind of distinction must be affirmed.

[The Fifth Argument]

It may be said: Suppose this attribute is accidental according to your terminology.

He may then be told: If knowledge is inseparable from His essence, or from the existence of His essence—assuming that existence is additional to the essence—then the existence of what is inseparable from Him would not depend on anything other than Him. Thus, this would not be incompatible with the existent being necessary in every