for it amounts to arguing that, because the opponent is wrong on one point, the proponent must be right on another. Its substance is thus to demonstrate the opponent’s inconsistency. The proponent tells him, “Since you affirmed that, affirm this as well, for it necessarily follows from it.” The opponent replies, “I believed there was no necessary connection between the two. If my belief is correct, the consequence does not follow. If it is incorrect, my error may lie in the consequent itself, not in affirming the antecedent whose truth we dispute.”

To explain this in the present case, consider those who say, “He is above the Throne, yet it is impossible for Him to be greater than it, smaller than it, or equal to it.” Either reason rejects their statement, just as it rejects the existence of a being neither within the world nor outside it, or it does not. If it rejects it, then this self-evident knowledge is proof against them and others in both cases. Nor is there any consensus on this matter; indeed, some of the disagreement concerning it has already been mentioned. If reason does not reject it, then it is not valid to challenge them on this basis, and this argument is not binding upon them.

This concerns inquiry. As for debate, they say, “We have distinguished between the two cases because we believe that