requires only the Messenger’s report. For whatever the Messenger has reported is true. Everything he has affirmed of the Lord necessarily belongs to Him, and whatever he has denied of Him is necessarily absent from Him. Thus, if the absence of a necessary consequence is posited, the absence of that which entails it necessarily follows.

All of this, however, is an implication of their position and demonstrates its falsity. Yet an implication of a position need not itself be a position held by its adherents. Indeed, most people make statements without accepting their implications. Thus, if someone says something that entails negation of the divine attributes, it does not follow that he believes in negating them. Rather, he may believe in affirming them without recognizing that implication.

Likewise, if the premises upon which they base their proof of the Creator are false, it does not follow that they themselves do not acknowledge the Creator, even if this is an implication of their position. If they say that He can be known only through this method, and its invalidity has become apparent, it follows that He cannot be known. Yet this implication demonstrates the falsity of their denial; it does not follow that they themselves do not acknowledge the Creator. For, as we have explained elsewhere, acknowledging the Creator, knowing Him, loving Him, and affirming His oneness are innate: they may be firmly established in a person’s heart while he thinks they are not there.

For this reason, the great majority of these people already acknowledged and recognized the Creator before pursuing this method of rational inquiry, whether it was sound or unsound. And this