it is due to a feature of the Lord—namely, the impossibility of movement and change of place, on which you agree with them. The absence of these is not an imperfection in your view or theirs, as already explained. It has also been explained that the consequence you charge them with—that He would be like someone incapacitated—applies even more forcefully to you. You both share this implication, and it attaches more closely to you than to them.

Nineteenth response: It may be said: Grant that it has positive existence, that its nature differs from that of other spatial regions, and that it can be indicated through the senses. As for your statement, “If it were divisible, the Creator occupying it would be divisible,” they reject this entailment, as explained above. They address divisibility with the detailed response already given.

Twentieth response: Your statement, “Or it would not be divisible, in which case it would occupy one direction rather than another. The spatial region would therefore have another spatial region, entailing an infinite regress.” It may be replied: Grant that this spatial region has positive existence. Why could there not be a spatial region that lacks positive existence? An infinite regress would follow only if every spatial region with positive existence had another spatial region with positive existence.

Twenty-first response: Your statement, “And if it is not possible to point