then they should be told:

Affirming existence while denying distinctness, co-location, being inside, and being outside is even less rationally conceivable and more evidently invalid. If any rational person of sound innate disposition is presented with the existence of a being outside the world, not co-located with it, and the existence of a being neither inside nor outside the world, his innate disposition will recoil more strongly from the latter. Even supposing that his innate disposition accepts the latter, it will accept the former all the more readily.

Accordingly, the possibility advanced by those who deny the divine attributes—that a being could exist neither inside nor outside the world—is either acceptable or unacceptable. If it is unacceptable, the foundation of their position collapses. If it is acceptable, then any evidence supporting it demonstrates even more strongly and clearly the possibility of a being existing outside the world without being spatially confined. For if the existence of a being neither inside nor outside the world is established as rationally possible, the other possibility is all the more admissible. If that is possible, the arguments they advance to deny spatial confinement do not negate His being above the world and elevated above His Throne. They would therefore have no evidence for denying this, which is precisely what was to be demonstrated.

Once the arguments by which they deny this are invalidated, it is well known that the revealed texts indicate it either conclusively or through their apparent meaning. Texts whose apparent meaning is not opposed by any evidence may not be interpreted contrary to that meaning. How much more so when it is maintained that His being above the world and distinct from it is known through innate disposition, self-evident knowledge, and rational arguments based on inference, as explained at length in its proper place.

What further clarifies this is that when those who deny the divine attributes affirm a being neither inside nor outside the world, they do not establish this through self-evident knowledge—neither its existence nor the possibility of its existence. Rather, they establish both