either affirming both contradictory propositions or denying both; it does not require me to affirm the temporal proposition and deny the spatial one. If I have distinguished between them by affirming one and denying the other, I would be mistaken in drawing that distinction. Yet my error would not necessarily lie in the spatial proposition, such that I must deny it and likewise deny the other. Rather, if I treat both alike by affirming them, I must say that the Necessary Existent is separate from the world. If I treat both alike by denying them, and it is granted that this invalidates the argument as proof of the world’s eternity, then at most I must concede either that the doctrine of the world’s eternity is false or that a particular argument for its eternity is invalid. There is no doubt that the world’s eternity, or the validity of this argument, is less evident and further removed from innate knowledge than the fact that the Necessary Existent, exalted is He, is above the world. Acknowledgment of this is firmly rooted in the innate disposition, and its affirmation has been transmitted from the prophets and messengers through countless reports. Thus, on one supposition, I would contradict the necessary knowledge inherent in my innate disposition by denying both propositions, and would contradict the prophets and messengers. On the other, I would merely contradict the arguments for the world’s eternity and invalidate this particular argument. Rejecting the latter would therefore be preferable in the judgment of every rational person.” This reasoning is supremely fair and clear.

It is thus evident that their proposed counterargument refutes neither group, whether in debate or in a person’s private reflection before his Lord, Most High. Rather, they used each group to cast doubt on the other, and committed themselves to