visible thing must be situated in a direction.” They stated this as a universal, unqualified proposition; they did not establish it by drawing an analogy between the unseen and the observable realms, such that they would formulate it in the manner he described and incorporate that false universal proposition into it.

The eleventh point: If what he mentioned constitutes an argument, it would be a second argument for the conclusion sought. For one may infer from His subsisting in Himself that He is situated in a direction, argue from His being visible that He is situated in a direction, and argue from His existence that He must either be separate from another existent or share its location. There is nothing impossible about having multiple proofs for a single conclusion.

The twelfth point: Regarding the argument he mentioned, one may say: We know necessarily that whatever subsists in itself must be situated in a direction, such that it cannot be neither inside the world nor outside it. This reasoning is not confined to the observable realm, with the unseen then established by analogy with it. Rather, this is known necessarily and without qualification, as explained previously.

The thirteenth point: When we establish this by proof, we present it in a form that demonstrates the point, as follows: It is established in the observable realm that whatever subsists in itself is situated in a direction. This is one respect in which the existent differs from the nonexistent. What necessitates this is either its being an existent that subsists in itself, some characteristic that also encompasses the being whose existence is necessary in itself, or something specific to contingent or temporally originated beings. The argument is then carried through to