the observable, whether through an unrestricted analogy, as he described it, or through a sound analogy precisely formulated by an exhaustive division encompassing negation and affirmation, or by some other means, as those who affirm the divine attributes proceed. When the evidence for a premise in one proof is like the evidence for a premise in another, this does not entail that one proof contains the other, or that mentioning the other is needless elaboration.

The fifteenth point: His statement: “If, however, we say that ‘Everything visible is situated in a direction’ is not a self-evident premise but a premise established by inference, then this premise cannot become certain unless they present evidence for its validity.”

This is correct. However, since he was presenting his opponents’ arguments, he ought to have mentioned the evidence people adduce for this. His omission is a failure and a breach of honesty in debate. We have not undertaken to establish these matters independently; rather, we have discussed only what they have presented of his arguments and those of his opponents.

The sixteenth point: His statement: “Furthermore, just as we cannot conceive of anything visible in the observable realm unless it faces the viewer or is effectively in that position, so too we cannot conceive of anything visible unless it is small or large, or extends in various directions and is composed of parts. Yet they say that He, exalted is He, is seen without being small