—which is impossible for Him—then the same follows from His being living, knowing, and powerful, and possessing life, knowledge, and power. We shall discuss his claim that this is not a case of drawing an analogy from the observable to the unseen.

As for the division into alternatives that he has presented, the sixth response is to say to him: A parallel to your division arises with everything affirmed of the Lord. For it may be said: If we point to an attribute, a meaning, or a predicate—such as His knowledge and power, His being knowing or powerful, His necessary existence and His existence, or His being a subject of intellection, an object of intellection, and intellect, and the like—then the other attribute, meaning, or predicate is either identical to it or different from it.

If it is identical to it, it follows that His being living is identical to His being knowing; His being knowing is identical to His being powerful; His being existent is identical to His being an agent; and His being an agent is identical to His being a subject of intellection, an object of intellection, and intellect. This leads to allowing distinct meanings to be treated as a single meaning, and every accident and attribute inhering in a subject to be one and the same attribute. This amounts to casting doubt on self-evident truths.

This, then, parallels the consequence they imposed upon their opponent: one must acknowledge the existence of two meanings, such that the concept conveyed by one is not