the arguments of those who deny the indivisible atom, for they use this to argue that it can be divided. You have already mentioned this in your discussion and stated that this is their argument. If this is an argument against the existence of the indivisible atom, it cannot validly be used while affirming the existence of that atom—the simple part that is in no way composite.

Rather, you may be asked afresh: Your statement, “Every body is composed of parts differing in their essential nature, so breaking down its composition must ultimately yield parts each free of this composition,” leaves only two alternatives. Either you affirm the existence of the indivisible atom, which has no composition, or you maintain that everything occupying space has a composition by virtue of which it admits division. If you affirm the former, you cannot validly say, “It must touch one thing on its right and another on its left,” for this amounts to affirming its divisibility and its composition from parts each free of composition. Rather, it is said that it always contains a composition by virtue of which it admits division in quantity and quality.

This answer, however, is valid if by simple parts he means indivisible atoms. But if he means parts free of that particular composition, even though they are composed of