pair of existing things must be such that one either inheres in the other or is separate from it,” it is self-evident that this is a judgment of the innate human disposition shared by the children of Adam. This necessary, innate judgment cannot be overturned by counterargument or disputation.

If they say, “This is a judgment of delusive imagination, like the assertion of the eternalists among the philosophers and others: ‘Of any two existing things, one must either precede the other or exist simultaneously with it,’” the reply is:

“Suppose that is so. The proposition you have offered as a comparison is also true: the innate disposition accepts it and judges accordingly.”

If he says, “This is part of the argument advanced by the eternalists who maintain that the world is eternal. If we acknowledge its validity, we must affirm the eternity of the world. That is false, and whatever entails falsehood is itself false,” the reply is:

“This proposition is known, self-evident, innate, and necessary. As for its supposedly entailing the eternity of the world, that is neither evident nor known. Rather, it is your own assertion. This may reflect the weakness of your response to the alleged necessary connection: when you could not answer it, you conceded that connection.”

The fifth point:

One may say: “Suppose we assume that the two necessarily entail one another. We have clearer rational knowledge of this proposition—which you have required me to deny so that I may also deny the first—than of the claim that the world, which according to you comprises all bodies and their attributes, came into being and that none of these is eternal. Thus, to argue that this premise is false on the grounds that this consequence is false, when that consequence