and each occupies space and has a location, then a fortiori this does not entail that they are of like nature. For an attribute is more integral to the reality of what it characterizes than magnitude is to what has magnitude, location to what is located, or occupied space to what occupies it. If sharing something more integral to their reality does not entail their being of like nature, then sharing something less integral is even less capable of entailing this.

These matters are discussed at length elsewhere. The purpose here is to outline the arguments by which they established the existence of the Maker.

[Fourth]

Al-Rāzī said:

“The fourth approach is to infer the existence of the Maker, Most High, from the coming into being of attributes and accidents—for example, a sperm-drop whose parts are alike becoming a human being. If these combinations are accidents that have come into being, and the human being is incapable of bringing this about, then there must be another agent. Whoever claims that knowledge of the need of what comes into being for an agent is self-evident also claims self-evidence here. Whoever establishes this through contingency or by analogy with the coming into being of entities says the same regarding the coming into being of attributes.”

He said:

“The difference between arguing from the contingency of attributes and