Thus, there are two answers to what you have said about His being below some people. The first is to deny that this amounts to being below. The second is to say that being below in this sense is not impossible. Combining these two answers, we may say: either this is genuinely a form of being below that contradicts His being above and entails imperfection, or it is not. If it is not, what you have said here is invalid. If it is, we do not concede that it is impossible for Him to be described as being below in this sense. This is a denial made on that supposition.

As for taking it as conceded by us that He cannot be described as being below under any circumstances, and using that to argue that He cannot be described as being above either, this is invalid, as becomes clear from the sixth line of argument. Namely, you have inferred from your opponent’s agreement with you that He cannot be described as being below that He cannot be described as being above. You stated that describing Him as being above, or otherwise, entails describing Him as being below, since all existing things described as being above—such as the heavens, the celestial bodies, and others—must also be described as being below in the sense you mentioned, according to the argument you presented. You then said: “It is agreed that His being below is ruled out; therefore, that which entails it—namely, being described as being above—must also be ruled out.”

The answer to you is: if everything described as being above must necessarily be described in this sense, then this would be a necessary implication of everything that is above and on high, and that would not be