Thus the one who separates between some attributes and others is addressed, regarding what he has negated, with the very argument he himself uses against his opponent concerning what he has affirmed. So when the Muʿtazilite says, “He has no will and no speech subsisting in Him, for such attributes exist only in created beings,” it is made clear to the Muʿtazilite that the Eternal One does possess these attributes, yet they are not like the attributes of contingent beings. In exactly the same way, those who affirm the rest of the attributes—love, pleasure, and the like—respond to him.

[Reason-based proof for affirming these attributes]

If he argues, “I established those attributes by reason: the occurrence of a newly originated act points to power, specification points to will, and flawless design points to knowledge. These attributes in turn necessitate life, and a living being cannot be devoid of hearing, sight, and speech, or else be characterized by their opposites,”

[Response]

then all the scholars who affirm the attributes say to him, “You have two replies:

First: the absence of a particular proof does not entail the absence of the particular thing to be proven. Grant, then, that the rational path you have taken fails to establish…"