finite and that He is not a body. In that case, lines and points cannot be posited in Him. You must therefore establish proof that something which is not a body cannot be infinite. If you establish such a proof, what you mentioned in the third section about the existence of empty regions of space above the Creator becomes untenable. For if, according to you, dimensions must be finite even when they are not bodies, regions of space must also be finite. It would therefore not necessarily follow that there is a region of space or a dimension above the Creator, as you required them to concede in the third section.”

As for the second argument you advanced against them, namely your statement: “If the existence of an infinite dimension is not impossible, then no proof can be established that the universe is finite in its entirety, and that is false by consensus,” they may say to you: “At most, you can claim consensus that its proof is the impossibility of an infinite dimension. But consensus on a conclusion does not entail consensus on a particular proof. Moreover, the invalidity of this proof does not entail the invalidity of all other proofs. How could it, when you have stated that the matter is agreed upon by consensus, and consensus is among the strongest proofs? For the validity of consensus does not depend on the impossibility of infinite dimensions,