yes they have invalidated what we see and if they say no they have invalidated their reasoning. and it is said to them is it necessary for someone who grew up in a village to rule that there is no righteousness except that there is righteousness behind it? and they are required to do the same as we have required them to do. and aristotle provided evidence that the movements of the world have no end with evidence one of which is that he presented in it that the world is eternal and that is his saying that if movement began in time then the body remained for an infinite time without moving and then moved and if it had an ancient mover then it was transformed or the body that moved it was transformed and whichever of the two was transformed then there was movement before it was movement. and if we were to assume that the body has not ceased then it would have to move and come to rest but this is something that we deny it. and our saying that the body and movement are both created and we have previously invalidated this point that the creator glory be to him is the one who does and if he does not do then he is transformed. and this evidence was mentioned in sam alkayan in the eighth article thereof.
نعم أبطلوا ما نشاهده، وإن قالوا لا أبطلوا استدلالهم. ويقال لهم هل يجب على من نشأ في القرية أن يحكم أنه لا بر إلا ومن ورائه بر؟ ويلزمهم نظير ما ألزمناهم واستدل أرسطوطالس على أنه لا نهاية لحركات العالم بأدلة أحدها أنه قدم فيه أن العالم قديم، وهو قوله إن الحركة إن الحركة إن كانت مبتدئة في زمان فقد بقي الجسم زمانا لا نهاية له غير متحرك ثم تحرك، وإذا كان له محرك قديم حركة فقد استحال أو استحال الجسم الذي حركه، وأيهما استحال فقد كانت حركة قبل أن تكون حركة. ولو أعطينا أن الجسم لم يزل لوجب أن يتحرك ويسكن ولكن هذا مما نمنعه إياه. وقولنا إن الجسم والحركة جميعا حادثان، وقد أفسدنا قبل هذا الموضع أن يكون البارئ جل وعز ذا فعل أن لم يفعل فقد استحال. وهذا الدليل ذكره في سمع الكيان في المقال الثامنة منه.