contrary to what can be conceived, this demonstration would be invalid, and his opponent could affirm a single entity, great in magnitude and capable of being pointed to, yet free of composition—even if this were contrary to what can be conceived of something great in magnitude that can be pointed to. If, however, the unobserved can only be affirmed in accordance with what can be conceived, then the book’s introduction would be invalidated, as would his assertion of an existent that is neither inside the world nor outside it, and of two existents neither connected to nor separate from one another.

This argument is entirely fair to anyone who understands it. For we have not said that this demonstration is invalid. Rather, we have said that the validity of such a demonstration entails the validity of the position of one who says that He is outside the world and that there cannot be an existent that is neither inside the world nor outside it. Thus, if the demonstration is valid, his statement that He is above the Throne is correct; and if the demonstration is invalid, it does not prove that He is not above the Throne.