His being one. We say: We concede that whatever is of great magnitude must be divisible in the observable realm. But why do you say that it must also be so in the unobservable realm? Analogizing from the observable to the unobservable without a common basis is invalid.

Our answer to the first objection is that whatever is of great magnitude must necessarily be divisible. This is not a matter of analogizing from the observable to the unobservable; rather, it rests on a conclusive proof. For if we point to an indivisible point, either something else exists above it or nothing does. If something else exists above it, then that which is above it must be distinct from it. For if it were permissible to say that what is being pointed to is identical with it, rather than distinct from it, it would be permissible to say that this part is identical with that part. This would lead to allowing that a mountain is one single thing.”