Thus it is established that affirming Allah’s indwelling in anything else leads to several alternatives, rendering that position invalid.

The manuscript does not mention the other alternative, namely, that this indwelling is contingent. I do not know whether it was omitted from the manuscript or from the original composition, but what he has stated indicates the corresponding argument for the other case. This argument rests on the assumption that bodies are alike, whose falsity has already been demonstrated in numerous ways. It also rests on the impossibility of what he calls division, and the falsity of this has likewise already been demonstrated.

As for his statement, “When large substances came into existence, there was no more reason for Him to indwell in one of them than in another,” this rests on the assumption that bodies are alike, which has already been discussed. Even assuming that they are alike, it rests on the premise that the Lord does not single out one of two like things for something solely by His will. This contradicts his own principle. Moreover, it is an established fact that certain bodies are distinguished by particular attributes. If that is so, their dissimilarity is conceded; but if