If you say:

The negation of this is a judgment of the estimative faculty.

It is said to you:

If this negation is a judgment of the estimative faculty and is unacceptable, then that (1) negation is likewise a judgment of the estimative faculty and is all the more unacceptable.

If you say:

The estimative faculty’s false judgment consists in judging imperceptible matters in the same way that it judges perceptible matters (2).

It may be said to you (3):

(* There are several answers. The first (4) is that this invalidates your argument for the falsity of these people’s position. For your assertion that it is impossible (5) for there to exist an existent above the world that is not a body is not (6) stronger than the assertion of one who says that it is impossible (7) for there to exist a self-subsisting existent to which one cannot point, [that it is impossible for two existents to exist that are neither spatially distinct nor spatially coincident, and that it is impossible for there to exist an existent that is neither within the world nor outside it] (8). If you do not accept this stronger claim because you allege that it arises from the false judgment of the estimative faculty (9), then, a fortiori, you must not accept the other, weaker claim. For both, according to you, arise from the estimative faculty’s false judgment. Moreover, the falsity of your position is more evident to the innate disposition than the falsity (10) of your opponents’ position. Thus, if their position (11) is rejected,