if it is said that our saying god was and there was no world has a third concept other than the existence of the self and the absence of the world as evidenced by the fact that if we assumed the absence of the world in the future the existence of the self and the absence of the self would be obtained and it is not correct to say god was and there was no world but rather it is correct to say god will be and there is no world. and we say for the past god was and there is no world. so there is a difference between our sayings was and will be since one does not replace the other. let us examine what the difference is due to there is no doubt that they do not differ in the existence of the self or in the absence of the world but in a third meaning. for if we say for the absence of the world in the future god was and there was no world we are told this is a mistake since was is only said of the past so it indicates that under the word was there is a third concept which is the past and the past in itself is time and the past without it is movement since it passes with the passage of time. so it is necessary that there was a time before the world that passed until it ended with the existence of the world.
فإن قيل لقولنا كان الله ولا عالم، مفهوم ثالث سوى وجود الذات وعدم العالم، بدليل أنا لو قدرنا عدم العالم في المستقبل كان وجود ذات وعدم ذات حاصلا ولم يصح أن نقول كان الله ولا عالم، بل الصحيح أن نقول يكون الله ولا عالم. ونقول للماضي كان الله ولا عالم. فبين قولنا كان و يكون فرق، إذ ليس ينوب أحدهما مناب الآخر. فلنبحث عن ما يرجع إليه الفرق ولا شك في أنهما لا يفترقان في وجود الذات ولا في عدم العالم بل في معنى ثالث، فإنا إذا قلنا لعدم العالم في المستقبل كان الله ولا عالم، قيل لنا هذا خطأ فإن كان إنما يقال على ماض، فدل أن تحت لفظ كان مفهوما ثالثا وهو الماضي، والماضي بذاته هو الزمان، والماضي بغيره هو الحركة فإنها تمضي بمضي الزمان. فبالضرورة يلزم أن يكون قبل العالم زمان قد انقضى حتى انتهى إلى وجود العالم.