opposite it? This is the very question at issue. The disparity occurs at the finite end, not at the infinite end; thus, no disparity occurs in what is infinite.

[The Sixth Argument and Commentary on It]

Al-Rāzī said:

Sixth: “If past revolutions were infinite, the existence of today would depend on the completion of what has no end; and whatever depends on an impossibility is itself impossible.”

Al-Armawī said:

Someone might reply: The completion of what has no end is impossible, but whether what has no beginning can come to an end is disputed.

I say:

Here there is both a verbal dispute and a substantive dispute. The verbal dispute concerns the following: if one assumes an uninterrupted succession of events extending into the past, with no first event, should this be expressed by saying that they have no end? Or should one say that they have no beginning, without saying that they have no end? The proponent of the argument expressed this by saying that they have no end, while the objector rejected that expression. This is a verbal dispute.

For one may say, “This is infinite,” meaning that it has no defined limit. “Infinite” may also mean that something has no last point. Likewise, “This has an end” means that it has a last point, and “This has no end” means that it has no last point. If past events are assumed always to have occurred, they may be said to “have no end” in the first sense. In the second sense, however, they have elapsed and passed away, and they have an end.