As for anything in the world being beginningless, you have no proof of this. Rather, your proof indicates the opposite: if what is brought into being were coexistent with its agent, nothing could ever come into existence in the world.

Both groups base their positions on the question of motion. One group says:

“Motion cannot be perpetual, so motion as a kind must have originated without any newly arising cause.”

The other says:

“Rather, motion as a kind cannot have originated, so motion cannot arise except from motion. Time is the measure of motion, so time must be beginningless as a kind.”

They then say:

“There is no motion beyond the motion of the celestial sphere or prior to it, apart from the measure of this motion. Thus, this motion and its time must be beginningless.”

They may be asked:

“How do you know that there is no motion prior to the motion of the celestial sphere or beyond it? Is this anything but speaking without knowledge, denying what you do not know to be nonexistent, and rejecting what you have not fully comprehended and whose fulfilment has not yet come to you?

“Then there is your assertion that there is no motion other than these motions, although they have neither beginning nor end: this motion is likewise so, yet one is many times greater than another.”

They said:

“A body cannot undergo infinite motion, as Aristotle stated, because a body is divisible. The motion of a part would therefore be infinite, just like the motion of the whole. But this is impossible: a part cannot be equal to the whole.”

They may be told:

“Rather, this argument, which Aristotle advanced and you accepted, indicates the opposite of what he and you intended. For when a body is in motion, the motion of the whole body is greater in spatial extent than the motion of part of it. No rational person considers this impossible. Thus, the motion of the part is not equal to the motion of the whole, but both