he also proved that the movement has not ceased that time is the number of the movement of the heavens or an event from it and if time had occurred there would have been time before its occurrence because whoever proves its occurrence must say it was after it was not and before and after and it was after it was not are evidence of time. so if someone says that time was after it was not then he has proven time before its occurrence and if it is proven that time is ancient and movement is ancient. this is evidence that he used in the article on the letter lam in the book metaphysics. this is similar to evidence that proclus used and we have said in contradicting him in it what we are satisfied with except that we also say that we answer with something other than what you estimated as an answer and we say that time is finite and the statement of the one who said that it has no beginning is impossible and this is only a connection to the confusion of words. we may say saturday is before sunday and if they say that there is an hour between them it is said to them or not?
واستدل أيضا على أن الحركة لم تزل بأن الزمان عدد حركة الفلك أو حادث عنها، ولو حدث الزمان لكان قبل حدوثه زمان لأنه لا بد لمن أثبت حدثه من أن يقول كان بعد أن لم يكن، والقبل والبعد وكان بعد أن لم يكن أدلة على الزمان. فإذا قال قائل كان الزمان بعد أن لم يكن فقد أثبت زمانا قبل حدوثه، وإذا ثبت أن الزمان قديم والحركة قديمة. وهذا دليل استدل به في مقالة اللام من كتاب ما بعد الطبيعة. وهذا شبيه بدليل قد استدل به برقلس، وقد قلنا في مناقضته فيه بما نكتفي به غير أنا نقول أيضا إنا نجيب بغير ما قدرته جوابا ونقول إن الزمان متناه، وقول من قال إنه لا أول له محال وهذا إنما هو تعلق بالشغب في الألفاظ. وقد نقول يوم السبت قبل يوم الأحد، فإن قالوا إن بينهما آنا قيل لهم أو ليس