He may be told: This begs the question. You established that He is exalted above spatial location through this very argument, one of whose premises you made His not being as contemptibly small as an indivisible atom. You were then told: “Whatever cannot be pointed to or perceived by the senses is more contemptible than an indivisible atom. You have described Him in precisely these terms, so, on your own premises, describing Him as being the size of an indivisible atom cannot be impossible.”

You replied: “Describing Him as contemptible would only follow if He had a spatial location and magnitude. But if He is exalted above spatial location and magnitude, there would be no basis for comparison between Him and anything else.”

You may therefore be told: The very point under discussion is whether He is exalted above spatial location and magnitude. You deny that He has these, whereas your opponent affirms that He does; this is the point at issue. If your answer rests on the very point at issue, you have begged the question against your opponent, making the conclusion itself a premise for proving that same conclusion. And a premise must