the substance of this argument? For denying likeness and resemblance does not entail admitting the possibility that He is neither within the world nor outside it, nor affirming what reason immediately recognizes as impossible, as explained above.

The twenty-sixth point:

You said:

“They acknowledge that His essence differs from the essences of these perceptible things.”

This accurately reports their position. You then sought to substantiate this report by arguing, on the basis of the proof you mentioned, that mental conception and imagination cannot fathom the true nature of His particular essence. But this is not the position you reported, nor have you established any proof for it. This was therefore a fallacy, through which the desired conclusion is drawn from their acknowledgment that He has no equal.

The twenty-seventh point:

Your statement: “It is thus established that they must acknowledge that the particular nature of His essence, by which it is distinguished from all other essences, cannot be fathomed by mental conception and imagination. This amounts to acknowledging the existence of something contrary to what mental conception judges and what is dictated by