Second:
Your argument based on “application and parity” rests on the premise that within an infinite series no portion can be greater than another.

They say: “If we set side by side the sequence of events from the Flood and the sequence of events from the Hijrah, then if the two prove equal it would mean that the greater equals the lesser—an impossibility. If they prove unequal it would entail that, within an infinite series, one part is larger than another—an impossibility as well.”

They were told in reply: “The same objection overturns your own position when applied to the future, for the future events after the Flood will outnumber those after the Hijrah.” Some of them tried to escape by saying, “The former has already occurred whereas the latter has not,” but, as you can see, that is a flimsy distinction.

As for their dictum, “What is without limit cannot differ in magnitude,” others refuted it, arguing instead: “The longer something endures, the greater its duration, even if it has no beginning; and the more events occur, the more numerous they become, even if there is no final endpoint—just as numbers increase the more you multiply them, although the series itself is endless. If you keep doubling one, ten, and a thousand, the individual units contained in a thousand exceed those in ten, and the units in ten exceed those in one, while the doubling of all of them can continue without limit.”

Still others distinguished between past and future, saying: “If you state, ‘I never gave you a single dirham without having given you another before it,’ that is possible; but if you say, ‘I will not give you a dirham until I have already given you one,’ that is impossible.”