He said:

“This argument is also invalid for three reasons:

First: We do not concede that existence is additional to the existent, such that existence could be said to bound it. Rather, existence is the existent itself, its very essence, as will be explained.

Second: Even if it is additional to each individual member of the totality, we do not concede that it bounds it. Rather, it is an incidental attribute accompanying each individual member, and a concomitant counterpart does not bound the thing it accompanies.

Third: Granted that existence bounds each individual member of the totality, we do not concede that a judgment concerning the individual members applies to the totality. Thus, each individual member of the totality can truthfully be called a part of the totality, whereas the totality cannot truthfully be called a part of itself.”

[Ibn Taymiyyah’s Commentary]

One might also refute this argument by saying: When someone says, “It is bounded by existence,” does he mean that there is an existing enclosure that contains what is finite or infinite between its two endpoints, or does he mean that it is described as existent? For if