without end, for supposing them to be infinite entails that nothing comes after them.

Thus, if it is said that after each one comes another, the supposition is that nothing comes after the whole, whereas something comes after each of its parts.

It is well known that, in such a case, what holds for the whole does not hold for its individual members. The same applies when the whole is supposed to have no beginning, while each of its members has a beginning.

Likewise, if the whole is described as a whole, an entirety, an aggregate, or as circular, square, triangular, an animal, or a human being, it does not follow that each of its parts must itself be a whole, round, or an animal.

What demonstrates the unsoundness of these philosophers’ position, however, is the following:

The impossibility of an infinite regress of causes is established by plain reason and the agreement of rational people. As for the existence of events without end, we do not reject this outright, since the leading scholars of the Sunnah affirm it concerning the Lord’s acts and words.

Their error, however, becomes apparent in several respects:

[The Unsoundness of the Philosophers’ Position in Several Respects]

(The First Respect)

Their position entails the existence of an infinite number of events at a single instant. This is impossible by their own agreement and that of the vast majority of rational people. Indeed, it entails the existence of the completion of causes