The fifth point concerns his statement: “As for the Creator, exalted be He, just as He differs from the world in essence and in time, He neither inheres in it nor serves as its substrate, nor do they share origination, contingency, or need. Since this is so, the difference between the Creator and the world is more complete than the difference between what inheres and its substrate.”

He may be answered as follows: As for their not sharing origination, contingency, or need, this amounts to affirming necessary existence and beginninglessness. That does not go beyond distinction in essence or in time, as explained above. As for His neither inhering in the world nor serving as its substrate, he may be told: If you mean that He is distinct from it in direction and place, that is precisely what we seek to establish. If, however, you mean that He neither inheres in it nor serves as its substrate, nor is distinct from it in direction, then this is neither intelligible nor conceivable.

If he then says that it is intelligible and that his opponents are merely being obstinate, they swear the most solemn oaths that it is not intelligible to them. They comprise vast communities, among whom are people whose truthfulness and religious devotion would prevent them from venturing to lie. Indeed, I have discussed this with various groups who, despite their intelligence and sound natural disposition, included no one who could conceive of it or comprehend it.

If you claim that it is intelligible to one group but not another, this is inconsistent with your own position, since rationally intelligible truths are common to all people. And if it is said that this is because some possess greater intelligence or discernment,