among the theorists.

This illustration and analogy are not sound. Rather, the correct analogy is to say:

“I never gave you a dirham without having given you a dirham before it.”

You thereby place one past event before another, just as, in the other example, you placed one future event after another.

As for saying, “I will not give you until I give you,” it denies a future act until another like it (1) occurs in the future and precedes it. Thus, (2) it denies the future until the future exists, which is impossible. It did not deny (3) the past until another past event preceded it, for that is possible. The future act of giving begins with the giver, and a future that has a beginning and an end cannot be preceded by that which has no end, for the existence of something infinite within what is finite is impossible.

These, then, are the four positions people hold concerning the infinite.

[INFINITE REGRESS IS OF TWO KINDS]

An infinite regress is of two kinds. One is an infinite regress among efficient causes, such as an infinite regress of causes and effects—that is, of agents and the things they bring about. This is impossible by agreement of all rational people.

This category includes an infinite regress of agents, creators, and originators. For example, one might say, “This originated thing has an originator, and that originator has [another] (4) originator,” and so on without end. To my knowledge, rational people agree that this is impossible, because every originator does not