This makes clear the answer concerning an agent that acts by nature, such as fire or water. Such an agent is said not to know what it does only because it does not know itself. No rational person has said that such an agent knows itself but not what it does, just as no rational person has said that it knows what it does but not itself, since knowledge of either entails knowledge of the other.

As for the analogy with sunlight, there are two answers.

First, the sun is a complete cause that produces light. Rather, it is a condition for the emanation of light, and that emanation depends on the existence of a body that reflects its rays. The First—glorified be He—alone is the Originator of everything other than Himself.

Second, if the sun is said to know itself and, at the same time, to originate its rays, we do not concede that it does not know those rays. The issue, however, lies in those two premises.

As for his statement, “Whatever he agrees with them on is binding upon him,” the response is that the correct formulation is: “Your affirmation of knowledge while denying will is a contradiction, which entails that you are mistaken either in affirming knowledge or in denying will.”

He should then be told: “These people denied both knowledge and will, whereas you affirmed knowledge but denied will. Yet the two necessarily entail one another. You must therefore be mistaken either in affirming knowledge or in denying will.”

He may then reply: “My aforementioned proofs establishing that He possesses knowledge are sound and entail