respond, “That would be true only if He were capable of receiving such attributes.”

This plea merely deepens the corruption of their position.

The same line of reasoning is followed by another group who declare, “He is neither inside the universe nor outside it.” When they are told, “That is rationally impossible—just as it is impossible to say that He is neither eternal nor originated, neither necessary nor contingent, neither self-subsistent nor dependent on something else,”

they retort, “Such impossibility applies only to a being that is receptive to those two opposites, and receptivity exists only in something mutahayyiz (occupying space). Once spatial confinement is negated, susceptibility to the two opposites is likewise negated.”

The reply to them is: Human knowledge that no existent can be devoid of both members of a contradictory pair is absolute; there is no exception. As for the ‘spatial confinement’ you mention: if by it you mean that existing spatial dimensions surround Him, that would mean He is inside the universe. But if you mean that He is set apart from created things—separate and distinct from them—then that is precisely what being outside the universe signifies.

Hence, the term mutahayyiz may at times denote what is inside the universe and at other times what is outside it