the argument with which he seeks to rebut the objection. It also reveals the soundness of the disputant’s own argument, benefiting both the inquirer and the debater.

This is further established by the nineteenth point: those opponents of his whom the founder supports say that He may be seen. Indeed, they allow that He may be perceived by touch, and even by other senses, while maintaining that He is not above the Throne, cannot be pointed to physically, and cannot be perceived by the senses. There is no doubt that they are utterly inconsistent in this.

For it is well known that perceiving Him by touch goes much further than pointing to Him physically or affirming that He is in a direction. A person’s sense of touch inheres in his own being, which is situated in a particular direction. Thus, perceiving something by touch entails contact and contiguity with it, its being in a direction relative to the person touching it, and other things not entailed merely by raising one’s hands or eyes towards it. We know that we can point to every existing thing we see, yet we can touch only some of them. If, then, He may be perceived by touch, it is all the more fitting and reasonable that He may be pointed to with the hand or the eye.