transformations is susceptible to the loss and corruption of its form, as is well known of bodies susceptible to separation and transformation. This and similar considerations establish His holiness and His freedom from these things, which amount to the nonexistence of His essence or of something belonging to His essence. Thus, His freedom from them is clear to the innate disposition and recognized by reason, since He is known to be real and necessarily existent in Himself, making anything incompatible with that impossible for Him. It is therefore clear that, although what he said about equality is true, he neither presented it rigorously nor supplied the proof establishing it. Instead, he mentioned something that is needed, despite the ambiguity it introduces.

Nineteenth point:

Had he said, “If these attributes were possible for Him, this would entail His dependence on another creator, or it would entail that contingency and temporal origination do not necessitate dependence on the Creator,” he would have pointed to a proof negating these things, even without explaining and establishing it. For admitting the possibility of these things only entails dependence on a creator, and that contingency or temporal origination does not