It may further be said to him: You are dealing here with the relation of affirmation and negation. If you insist that both alternatives must first be known to be possible, then you have no right to say, “The Necessary Existent is either existent or nonexistent, and that whose existence is impossible is either existent or nonexistent,” for in each of these cases one alternative is certainly real while the other is certainly impossible.

But if you require only that at least one of the two be known to be possible, then it is perfectly valid to say, “Either He is living or He is not; either He is hearing and seeing or He is not.” For if negation is genuinely possible, the division is sound; and if negation is impossible, then affirmation is necessary, and the intended conclusion is reached.

Should it be objected, “This merely places the matter under the heading of affirmation and negation—as we concede—yet all that follows is that He is either hearing or not hearing, seeing or not seeing, and the opponent opts for the negation,”

the reply is: On that assumption, whatever is affirmed is necessary and whatever is denied is impossible. Hence these attributes are either necessary for Him or impossible for Him, and there is no rationale whatsoever for claiming impossibility, for no proof supports it.

Indeed, we can even say that the impossibility is refuted by self-evident knowledge, for the only arguments that could ever be advanced to establish it are the very same arguments used to deny the attributes altogether, and the invalidity of those arguments is already known. It therefore follows that affirming these attributes as necessary for Him is itself obligatory.