they denied what is established (1) by the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Salaf; indeed, even what is established by the rational innate disposition shared by all whose natural dispositions have not been corrupted by the false doctrines inculcated into them, and even what is established by rational proofs—is this: if He possessed attributes, or spoke with speech subsisting in Him, willed through a perceptible will subsisting in Him, and if seeing Him were (possible) in this world or the Hereafter (2), He would be composed either of sensible, indivisible atoms or of intelligible substances—matter and form.
This entailment is false, according to the great majority of rational people, with respect to the things we observe. People see the stars and other bodies, yet, according to the great majority of rational people, these are composed in neither of those two ways.
Even if this entailment were assumed to be valid, their arguments contain no sound proof requiring the consequent to be denied. Rather, each of the two groups challenges the other group’s arguments and demonstrates their falsity.
One group says, “Everything of this kind is originated.” Their opponents challenge both premises and demonstrate their falsity.
The other group says, “Every composite depends upon its parts, and its parts are other than it; therefore, every composite depends upon something other than itself.” Their opponents demonstrate the invalidity of this argument and expose the ambiguous terms and equivocal meanings it contains, as has been explained at length elsewhere.
This is why some rational thinkers who understand the true nature of the positions held by both groups say: