invalidate what is firmly established in innate human dispositions by means of arguments whose validity depends on that very knowledge, and which may even be inferior to it. If what is thus established is true, they cannot reject it; and if it is false, they cannot use it as evidence to invalidate what is firmly established in innate human dispositions. This would amount to undermining the foundation by affirming what is derived from it, whereas undermining the foundation also undermines what is derived from it. Such is the habitual practice of those who oppose innate human disposition and revealed law. Hence, all their discourse is as it has been described:
Arguments that shatter like glass:
You think them sound, yet each shatters and is shattered.
What further clarifies this is that most of the arguments he has advanced to deny that He is a body and that He is upon the Throne concern such matters as the likeness of bodies to one another and of substances to one another; a finite body's capacity for increase and decrease, and its contingent existence; a body's composition, whether of attributes or of magnitudes; the inability of a single attribute to subsist in a body; a body's never being free of either motion or rest; whether a body's occupation of space has positive existence or is a privation; the necessity of a body or spatial extension being either finite or infinite; the elevation of certain bodies entailing their being beneath some people; a body's susceptibility to separation and dissolution; and the forthcoming argument that a direction is