that there is no proof whatsoever that this is impossible. Indeed, it has been shown that declaring it impossible entails denying the existence of everything. Had he not referred back to the preceding discussion, we would not have done so either.

The ambiguity in the terms “composition,” “space,” “other,” and “dependence” has already been explained, as has the fact that every existent, whether necessary or contingent, must possess what they mean by these terms, and that declaring this impossible entails sheer sophistry. It has also been shown that everyone—even the philosophers—is bound to affirm something like the meaning he has called “composition”; that this opponent maintains something similar concerning the multiplicity of attributes; and that he has shown that the philosophers are likewise committed to it. Thus, the assertion made by some of these people that whatever is divisible or composite in this