he said aristotle and those who interpreted his books in the second article of natural hearing claimed that nature does not need evidence for its appearance and peoples recognition of it and their acknowledgment of its existence. and those philosophers we have seen claimed that the evidence for its existence is its actions and powers spread throughout the world that cause actions. such as the departure of fire and air from the center and the departure of water and earth to it. it is known that if there were no powers in it that caused those movements and were a principle for them they would exist in it. and they said the same about what is found in plants and animals of the power of nourishment and the power of growth. as for their saying that they did not prove the existence of nature because people acknowledged it the thing is not valid because people acknowledged it just as it is not invalid because of their disagreement about it. and if it were true because of the acknowledgment of those who acknowledged it it would be invalid and false because of the abstention of those who abstained from it. so the thing would be invalid and true in one case and invalid and true in another case and this is impossible. it is said to them why did you claim that nature does not need proof when some of the ancient philosophers disagreed with you about its existence? what do you think if your opponents say that they do not need proof based on their statement that there is no nature? only observable things and the beginnings of rational proof do not need proof and nature is not perceptible nor is knowledge of it the first in the mind.
قال زعم ارسطو طاليس ومن فسر كتبه في المقالة الثانية من السماع الطبيعي أن الطبيعة لا تحتاج دليل لظهورها واعتراف الناس بها وإقرارهم بوجودها. وزعم من شاهدنا من الفلاسفة أن الدليل على وجودها أفعالها وقواها المنبثة في العالم الموجبة للأفعال. كذهاب النار والهواء من المركز وذهاب الماء والأرض إليه، فيعلم أنه لولا قوى فيها أوجبت تلك الحركات وكانت مبدأ لها توجد فيها. وكذلك قالوا فيما يوجد في النبات والحيوان من قوة الغذاء وقوة النمو فأما قولهم انهم لم يدلوا على وجود الطبيعة لإقرار الناس بها، فالشيء لا يصح لإقرار الناس به كما لا يفسد لاختلافهم فيه. ولو كان حقا لإقرار من أقر به لكان فاسدا باطلا لامتناع من امتنع منه، فيكون الشيء فاسدا صحيحا في حال وباطلا حقا في حال وهذا محال. ويقال لهم لم زعمتم أن الطبيعة لا تحتاج إلى دليل وقد خالفكم في وجودها قوم من الفلاسفة القدماء وما وما رأيتم إن قال خصماؤكم انهم لا يحتاجون على قولهم انه لا طبيعة إلى دليل؟ وإنما لا تحتاج إلى دليل الأشياء المشاهدة وأوائل البرهان العقلية وليس الطبيعة بمحسوسة ولا العلم بها أول في العقل.