nor any argument worth mentioning. That is why you have offered no argument for it; this denial has simply found its way into your discourse without any supporting argument.
If you say, “Rather, it is true,” you acknowledge that some truth cannot be weighed on the scales of your logic.
If you say, “We do not know whether it is true or false,” you acknowledge that the greatest and noblest objects of inquiry cannot be weighed on the scales of logic. If you affirm it, logic does not support you. If you deny it, logic does not support you. If you remain in doubt, logic does not help you.
It is well known that balances used for weighing wealth are not intended to weigh firewood and lead while excluding gold and silver. Prophethood and what the messengers brought hold a higher place among the branches of knowledge than gold does among forms of wealth. If your logic contains no balance for weighing this, then its balance—though it is a balance—is biased and unjust, as well as incapable. It is thus an ignorant, unjust balance: either it rejects and repels the truth, thereby being unjust; or it neither weighs it nor clarifies its nature, thereby being ignorant; or it combines both failings, rejecting and repelling the truth—the very truth for which souls have no substitute, with which they cannot dispense, in which alone their happiness lies, and only through abandoning which do they perish.
How, then, can you reasonably say that it, together with the paltry wares you have weighed with it—being unjust and biased in weighing them, neither weighing with an upright balance nor reasoning from clear signs—is the criterion of true knowledge and certain wisdom