I say:

The statement, “This is finite or infinite,” is ambiguous. It may refer to that which has no limit at either its beginning or its end, so that nothing can be added to it. This is what Ibn Rushd means by that which is infinite only at its beginning or only at its end, as with past events when they are said to be infinite: they have no limit in respect of their beginning, meaning that they have no beginning. Yet if they are supposed to have ended today, they have reached a limit at this end.

Ibn Rushd said:

“The opponents of these theologians do not say that before this particular revolution there were infinitely many revolutions in the first sense—that is, having neither beginning nor end. Rather, they acknowledge that, in that case, the revolutions have an end. For them, this is what is infinite in the other sense, which they consider possible.”

He said:

“For one of their principles is that an infinity whose existence is possible is one beyond which something always exists; I mean that it can always be added to.”

He said:

“They merely posit that before this particular revolution there was another revolution,