hadith.

Third, he may be told: When this is combined with other evidence, the two together yield certainty, even if neither yields certainty on its own, as is the case with other scriptural and rational proofs.

The third response is that this can be established through an exhaustive division based on affirmation and negation, as we established it in the question of vision. We may say: What the two share is either existence itself, something necessarily entailed by existence, or neither existence nor anything necessarily entailed by it. Whatever is neither existence nor anything necessarily entailed by it is more specific than existence, since whatever is coextensive with existence, or more general than it, is necessarily entailed by it.

What is more specific than existence, however—such as origination and contingency—is not necessarily entailed by it, since an existent need not be contingent or originated. This differs from a more general attribute, such as the possibility of being mentioned and known: the absence of this entails the absence of existence, because it is more general than existence.

Alternatively, you may say: It is either existence itself, something coextensive with it, something more general than it, or something more specific. If it is more specific, it either encompasses necessary existence or does not. If it encompasses it, then in this respect it is like existence. If it does not encompass it, then it necessarily entails origination, for everything