righteousness, but the presence of the motive (1) without the requisite ability does not bring about the desired result.

If it is said:

“Rather, what is required is an infallible person who possesses the requisite ability.”

The reply is:

“No such person has existed (2). If these twelve (3) were capable (4) of doing so but did not, they would necessarily have been disobedient (5), not infallible. If they were incapable of doing so, they would necessarily have been powerless. One of these two conclusions—or both—therefore unquestionably follows: powerlessness and the absence (6) of infallibility. Since this is so, we know necessarily that the very thing invoked as proof of his existence is absent. Necessary truths cannot be challenged by inferential reasoning.”

The Seventh Argument:

It may be said: “Such a person is said to exist in [this] (7) age and every other age, yet in this age no one can know what he says, let alone know that he brings about benefit or wards off harm. What they have stated is therefore false.”

The Eighth Argument:

Although He—Glorified is He—is able to appoint an infallible person, we do not concede that appointing him entails no harm. This [universal] (8) negation requires evidence; merely lacking knowledge of any harm is insufficient, for lack of knowledge is not knowledge