It is impossible for him to reconstruct the citizen because his journey is in the second time of his existence for himself and he is not a resident, and if it were possible for him to move, he would have risen himself and dispensed with the place and not destroyed it, as opposed to describing it as loss or agent, for your statement is an action and there is nothing that a rational person would say. < /p
[ Chapter: Nullification of events that have no beginning ]
Then he said, “Whoever’s existence depends on the annihilation of a thing, then it does not exist until it is annihilated. If it exists, then that thing has annihilated.” The meaning depends on it, and the meaning came from its precedence as something, so it has been limited to it and restricted, and this description is binding on it, and if it is repeated, then the eye has been confirmed with two words.
[ Chapter: The foot ]
< p> Then he said, even if the rule of the predicate to it were the rule of the predicate, the number would not be finite and the existence of the one who exists would not be valid
[ Chapter: It is not of substance ]
Then he said, even if What we have proven would be voided and destroyed, it would have worn out and not been destroyed.
[ Chapter: Not a body ]
Then he said, if it were to accept composition, it would dissolve or composition would dissolve, and if Similarity occurred, differentiation occurred .