first, because His knowledge that He is the Creator cannot exist without His knowledge of created things, since knowledge of a relation includes knowledge of both its terms;

and second, because He has complete knowledge of Himself. Being the Creator is one of His attributes, so He cannot have complete knowledge of Himself without knowing that He is the Creator, nor can He know that He is the Creator without knowing created things.

It should also be understood that, of any two inseparable things, the existence of either necessarily entails the existence of the other. Thus, for us, either can serve as evidence for the other: sometimes we infer this from that, and sometimes that from this.

We may infer whichever of the two is unknown from whichever is known. Or we may use one known thing as evidence for another known thing, to show that it too provides evidence for it, to reinforce our knowledge, and to enable that knowledge to arise in the soul sometimes through this proof and sometimes through that, when knowledge of the other has slipped from memory. For the soul may know something and then forget it. When proofs are numerous, each can yield knowledge of it, should the other proofs be forgotten.

This is why there may be many proofs for a single conclusion. Whatever can serve as evidence for something else, the Lord’s knowledge of it necessarily entails His knowledge of what it indicates, since complete knowledge of something that entails another is impossible without knowledge of what it entails. Yet He, glorified is He, has no need to infer knowledge of either from knowledge of the other. So much for this point.

Our purpose is to explain the arguments people put forward in support of the truth. If they fall short in explaining a proof, we complete their explanation; and if, in another respect, they maintain something contrary to what that proof entails, we refute it.