The deniers’ principal argument is that originated occurrences cannot subsist in Him and cannot form an infinite succession. If they deny that such occurrences arise in His essence only because originated occurrences cannot subsist in Him, they cannot answer the proofs of their origination merely by invoking the proof that originated occurrences cannot subsist in Him, without answering the opposing proof. That would be circular reasoning.

If someone says, “The proof that the affirmers’ argument is invalid is the deniers’ argument,” he is told: “The deniers’ argument is not established unless the affirmers’ argument is invalidated. If the challenge can be made only on the basis of the affirmers’ argument, the validity of the deniers’ argument depends on the validity of that argument, which is circular reasoning.” For this denial cannot be established without answering the affirmers’ argument. Their claim that originated occurrences do not subsist in Him would thus be based on the claim that originated occurrences do not subsist in Him, leaving them with no proof of it.

The affirmers have numerous scriptural proofs transmitted through recurrent, independent channels, whereas the deniers have no scriptural evidence at all. They merely claim that rational proof establishes the impossibility of originated occurrences subsisting in Him. If some affirmers wish to establish a rational proof that such occurrences subsist in Him, or that their subsisting in Him is possible, they must answer the deniers’ arguments. Likewise, the deniers’ argument for negation is not established until they answer the affirmers’ arguments. Otherwise, even if the rational arguments on both sides were assumed to conflict and carry equal weight, the scriptural proofs would remain free of any opposing argument that must take precedence over them.

Thus, when the affirmers cite Quranic verses and hadiths, the deniers cannot say, “This establishes that originated occurrences subsist in Him, and that is impossible,” unless they establish a rational proof of its impossibility and answer the rational arguments advanced by the affirmers. The deniers must therefore do both. The affirmers, by contrast, can