the Throne without being divisible or diminutive is more readily intelligible to reason than His being visible to the eyes without being in any of the six directions. The latter rests on two premises, both of which are rejected by self-evident reason and innate disposition. The first is the affirmation of an existent that is in no direction, neither within the world nor outside it. This is why people of sound innate disposition generally reject it. The second is the affirmation that this existent can be seen with the eyes. Even those who agree with you on the first premise disagree with you on this one, for His existence is easier to accept than His being visible.

If, then, you allow that something can be seen with the eyes without facing the beholder or being in any of the six directions relative to him, how can you deny the existence of a being above the world who is neither composite nor a diminutive particle? This merely affirms His existence as differing in certain respects from that of familiar existents, whereas your position affirms Him as differing from familiar existents in far more significant respects. The evidence for this is that all sound human dispositions reject the latter far more strongly