a persuasive argument. That being so, the argument we have presented can serve to counter it.”

I say:

This argument is of the same kind as the preceding one concerning the name “the Self-Sufficient,” and is even more unsound. This becomes clear in several ways.

First, this argument rests on two premises:

The first is that the Real is called “the Generous.”

The second is that “the Generous” means what you have stated. Yet you have offered no argument whatsoever for either premise—neither a sound proof nor even a specious argument. What you have presented is therefore a mere assertion by which you have misled people, just as you misled them by saying that He is self-sufficient and that someone self-sufficient is one who is such-and-such. You offered no argument for either premise. There, however, you claimed that having a will necessarily entails dependence on another, whereas it has been established that He is the Necessary Existent and therefore cannot depend on another. Although the unsoundness of that argument has already been demonstrated, you have offered no comparable argument concerning the name “the Generous.” This was instead a bare assertion, for he cannot say, “The Necessary Existent must be generous,” as he said, “He must be self-sufficient.”