above a thing. Indeed, all their discourse in this area involving the terms “that which occupies space,” “occupation of space,” “direction,” “body,” “substance,” “aggregation,” “separation,” “motion,” and “rest”—whether they discuss the Creator’s attributes by way of negation or affirmation, or created beings and their attributes in the same way, or proofs of their origination and contingency, or anything else—is nothing but discourse about bodies, their properties, and what follows from these.

If such discourse and the reasoning by which it is understood are inadmissible in theology, then everything the philosophers and speculative theologians alike have advanced in this connection is invalid. If it is invalid, they cannot legitimately use such discourse to deny what is known through innate human disposition or what revealed law indicates. This is one of the most important points to establish. Consequently, their assertion that He is not a body, does not occupy space, is not in a direction, and is not above the world such that He can be pointed to is untenable.