when we submit to reason the existence of a being who cannot be pointed to, whom nothing can approach, to whom nothing ascends, from whom nothing descends, who is neither within the universe nor outside it, and toward whom hands are not raised—and other such claims—our natural disposition rejects it. All rational people whose natural dispositions have not been altered reject it. No one accepts it except someone who has been indoctrinated in the deniers’ doctrines and arguments (1). Otherwise, sound natural dispositions (2) unanimously reject it even more strongly than they reject breaches of the customary order, because (3) all religious communities agree that the customary order may be breached, and rational philosophers concur with them on this.

We therefore say:

If the deniers’ position is true and acceptable (4) to reason, then affirming that the Lord exists upon the Throne without being a body is closer to reason and more deserving of acceptance. Once it is established that He is above the Throne, seeing what is above a person—even if it is not a body—is closer to reason and more deserving (5) of acceptance than affirming the position (6) of the deniers. It thus becomes clear that, according to these people’s position, the vision is closer to reason than the deniers’ position. Even if this is assumed to be contrary to what is customary, allowing for a breach of the customary order is more reasonable than the deniers’ position (7), for their position is impossible according to the natural dispositions of rational people and cannot conceivably be possible, whereas a breach of the customary order (8) is possible.