to deny that, and it is not complete until the counterargument has been answered. How, then, can you answer a counterargument that entails the opposite of your position by appealing to that very position? Is this not tantamount to an objector challenging your proof on the grounds that it entails the opposite of his own position?”

If it is said: “He did not answer the counterargument by appealing to his own position. Rather, he said that the validity of the counterargument depends upon the opposite of his position, which he does not affirm. He is therefore saying to the objector: ‘Unless you establish the opposite of my position, your counterargument is invalid.’ Here, his role is to challenge the proof, while the objector is presenting an argument. The original proponent may challenge some of the objector’s premises and give as grounds for his challenge that he does not hold that view. He mentioned this to state the grounds for his challenge, not to offer proof for it, since someone who challenges a claim and demands evidence is not obliged to furnish a proof.”

The reply is: “The objector did not base his proof on this. Rather, he stated that whatever cannot be perceived by the senses or pointed to is nonexistent and more contemptible than an indivisible atom. You then claimed that this follows only if He is free of spatial location and magnitude, so that describing Him as contemptible does not follow. This condition, then, is merely something you claim his proof entails