closer to reason than that of one who affirms an existent that cannot be perceived and is neither inside the world nor outside it.

In sum, the fact is that (1) there is no argument they invoke to invalidate the position of their opponents (2) that does not demonstrate the falsity of their own position even more forcefully; yet they contradict themselves. Those who agreed with them in some of their errors came (3) to concede (4) to them that false, negative premise [namely, the affirmation of a self-subsisting existent that cannot be pointed to, is neither separate from anything else nor co-located with it (5), and is neither inside the world nor outside it] (6), and seek (7) to apply it consistently, even though its consistent application entails sheer falsehood.

The proper line to take in debate is not to concede that premise (8). Rather, it should be said:

If it is false, the very foundation of the position held by those who negate is invalid. [If it is true, it demonstrates even more clearly that the position (9) of those who affirm is possible. For if it is possible to affirm an existent that is not a body and is neither inside the world nor outside it, then it is all the more possible to affirm an existent above the world that is not a body. If that is not possible, the very foundation of the position held by those who negate is invalid] (10). It is thus established that Allah [Most High] (11) is either inside the world or outside it; hence, their position affirming an existent