He would be told:

“If by ‘direction’ you mean something existent, the first premise is not granted; and if you mean something non-existent, the second premise is not granted. Thus, under either interpretation, one of the two premises must be false, and the argument is therefore invalid.”

For if he means something existent by “direction,” it does not follow that everything that can be seen must be in an existent direction. The outermost surface of the world is not in an existent direction, yet it can nevertheless be seen, for it is a body among bodies.

Thus, their claim is false:

“Everything that can be seen must be in an existent direction, (1 if by ‘direction’ he means something existent 1).” (1)

If, however, he means something non-existent by “direction,” the second premise is not granted. For if he says, “The Creator is not in a non-existent direction,” although it is known that nonexistence is not a thing, the true import of his statement is:

“The Creator cannot exist, subsisting by Himself, where no existent being exists except Him.”

This is false.

If he says, “This entails (2) that He is a body or occupies space,” the discussion returns to what is meant by the terms “body” and “that which occupies space.” (3)

If he says, “This entails that He is composed of indivisible atoms, or of matter and form, or entails other meanings that are impossible with respect to the Lord,” this alleged entailment is not conceded.

And if he says:

“This entails that the Lord can be pointed toward, that hands are raised toward Him in supplication (4), that the angels and the Spirit ascend to Him, and that Muhammad was taken up—may Allah bless him