these people and others. Thus, accepting that these positions are false is simply to apply the argument consistently. When someone advances an argument that refutes his opponents’ position both in the case under dispute and in other cases he has not mentioned, his opponent cannot refute that argument merely by invoking his own position on the disputed case. Nor must the person advancing the argument provide a separate proof for each case when the general proof encompasses them all.

This exposes the error in his statement: “Unless you disprove this position, you cannot validly maintain that, of any two existents in the observable realm, one must either be co-located with the other or spatially separate from it.” The same applies to his statement: “Unless you disprove the Muʿtazilah’s affirmation of volitions, aversions, and annihilation subsisting in no subject.” For the argument they have presented—that any two existents must either be spatially separate or occupy the same location—constitutes a proof against these people and others alike, whether it rests on self-evident knowledge or syllogistic reasoning. The mere assertion of these people, or anyone else, therefore does not counter the argument presented.

If, however, they were to establish a proof for a substance that is not spatially separate from anything else, or for an accident that is not co-located with anything else, that proof would constitute a counterargument. But no such proof has been presented. If it were presented, the answer to it would be the same as that given by this author and all other human beings. This becomes clear in the fourth reply, concerning his statement that the majority of