the world is in a spatial locus but not in a place, whereas what is within the world is in a place. For them, a spatial locus is a conception of place, just as what precedes the creation of the world is not time but a conception of time. If it is something conceived and posited, with no existence in itself, then his argument falls apart. Nevertheless, his three arguments still need to be answered.

As for the first argument, he appeals to his opponent’s assertion that Allah must be in the upward direction and cannot be in any of the other directions. If his opponent’s assertion is true, then the position whose falsity he seeks to demonstrate has been established as correct, without his even having heard his opponent’s proof for it. If it is false, it does not establish that a spatial locus is something existent. On either supposition, this argument is unacceptable: it is either false or entails the correctness of his opponent’s position.

If he says, “I am using it to argue against my opponent on his own premises,” he is told: At most, this is a dialectical argument in which you have relied on a false assertion made by your opponent. This does not constitute a conclusive demonstration that a spatial locus is something existent.

You are then asked: By what means do you know—or teach those who seek your guidance without blindly adopting a school of thought—that a spatial locus is something existent? For if