its conclusion, as described in the argument concerning separation and sharing a location. No rational person says that it is necessarily known that everything established in the observable realm must likewise hold in the unseen. Rather, he presented the argument in this objectionable form, whose falsity is obvious, in order to make his opponents’ position appear repugnant and discredit it. This is not the conduct of those possessed of knowledge and justice, but of someone ignorant or unjust.

The fourteenth point: His statement: “If this line of reasoning already establishes that He, exalted is He, is situated in a direction, then establishing that He is situated in a direction on the basis of His being visible, and then establishing that everything visible is situated in a particular direction, is needless elaboration, providing neither benefit nor further explanation or clarification.”

The response is: Even if what you mentioned concerning subsistence in oneself were correct, establishing that He is situated in a direction through His visibility would not be needless elaboration. Rather, it would establish this by another method, distinct from the first. Inferring that something is situated in a direction from its subsisting in itself differs from inferring this from its being visible and observable. Since these are two distinct proofs, presenting one cannot amount to including the other, nor can presenting the other constitute needless elaboration. At most, one may say that knowledge of the two premises in the two proofs is acquired in the same way: through necessary knowledge or by drawing an analogy between the unseen and