the atheists. Yet many speculative thinkers may become confused about these matters. They defend what they suppose to be the teachings of the prophets with what they suppose to be a rational proof, whereas the reality is otherwise: the statement is not among the prophets’ teachings and may even contradict them, while the supposed proof is not rationally sound but defective. Thus they err concerning both reason and revelation and oppose both, imagining that they agree with them. The sign of this is their opposition to the explicit prophetic texts and to what Allah has innately disposed rational beings to recognize.

Whoever opposes these two is opposing both revelation and reason, as is the case with many who deny Allah’s attributes and actions.

The point here is that those who object to the argument presented for the finitude of events say that he has offered no proof that they must be finite. His principal argument is his statement:

“An endless series cannot be exhausted one item after another. Thus, when events have elapsed, their passing indicates their finitude.”

They say that the term “ending” is ambiguous: “Do you mean an ending in the sense that they have no beginning, or an ending in the sense that what has passed has elapsed?”

As for an ending in the second sense, they do not dispute it. Indeed, they concede that whatever has ended has ended. But they do not concede that events have ended. Rather, they say: “They have always occurred and will always continue to occur.” For their ending would mean their cessation, termination, and exhaustion, whereas they have neither been exhausted nor ceased.

And if it is said: “The past has come into existence, unlike the future.”