in contingency and dependence upon a cause, this comes back to separateness in essence, for the One whose existence is necessary in itself and who is independent of all else differs in essence from that which is contingent in itself and dependent upon another. The substance of what he has stated is thus that the Creator’s separateness is more complete than that between a substance and an accident, because, besides differing in essence and time, He is not co-located with the world. This is likewise what these thinkers said: separateness from the world is greater than that between a substance and an accident. This statement therefore affirms one of the premises of their proof.

He then says: “If you claim that separateness between them obtains apart from these respects, and consequently say that this separateness must be spatial, then that is the point at issue.”

The first response is: This does not answer these thinkers, for you have neither challenged any premise of their proof nor offered a counterargument. Rather, you have introduced an irrelevant statement and noted that they dispute with you over spatial separateness. There is no doubt that they dispute with you over this, but they have presented an argument, and you have challenged none of its premises. You have merely stated your position, and stating one’s position is not an answer to someone who has argued that it is false.

It may then be said: They did not claim that separateness obtains apart from these respects. Rather, they said that this separateness established by the absence of co-location—which is one of those respects—necessarily entails spatial separateness. Or they said that the separateness established in these