that either one can be known without the other being known, just as we know (1) that He is powerful before knowing that He is knowing, and we know the essence before knowing its attributes. Thus, in this sense, the one is other than the other. Explicit reason establishes that distinct meanings (2) must necessarily be affirmed in this sense. His being self-subsistent is not the same as His being knowing; His being knowing is not (3) the same as His being living; and His being living is not (4) the same as His being powerful. Whoever identifies each of these attributes with the others and identifies all the attributes with the subject they qualify has reached the furthest extreme of sophistry.

This is no different from someone saying:

“Blackness is whiteness, and blackness and whiteness are the same as that which is black and that which is white.”

Moreover, all those who deny the attributes by which He is characterized contradict themselves, combining denial and affirmation in their doctrine. They have made this the foundation for negating the divine attributes and rejecting what is known through explicit reason and authentic revelation.

Those who deny His knowledge of things say:

“Lest this entail multiplicity (5).”

Those who deny His knowledge of particulars say:

“Lest this entail change.”

They invoke the terms “multiplicity” and “change,” though both are equivocal. The hearer imagines that this would entail a multiplicity of gods, or that (6) the Lord changes and passes from one state to another, as a human being changes through illness or some other cause, or as the sun changes when its color turns yellow. Yet he does not realize that, according to them, (7)