Premise one: the movement had an origin. If the movement was perpetual then the series of previous movements to any instant in the time would be infinite, that is, being overcome one instant any in the time as referencial it is arrived conclusion of that it stops arriving at this instant if they would have succeeded infinite movements. What it generates a paradox, therefore it is impossible to arrive at the infinite and for in such a way the movement it cannot be perpetual, but it had an origin. Premise two: the existence is perpetual. So that the existence could appear would be necessary that before it had possibilities. What it is a paradox, therefore nothing can precede the existence, then to the existence it does not have I begin, but she is perpetual.
Silogism: refutation of the mecanicismo. If the movement was necessary to the existence, then it could not have existence without movement and as the existence is perpetual the movement also would be, but as the movement has an origin it is not necessary to the existence or it does not happen for necessity, but it could not exist. Therefore an inevitable predestination for the facts does not exist, but everything could be different. Ahead of diverse possibilities for the movement and no trend for its existence if it makes necessary that it occurs voluntarily or it never would exist. Conclusion. As we saw the movement had an origin and this means that it had one I begin for the Creation, therefore nothing appears without movement. On the other hand the existence is perpetual and this means that before the Creation already it had existence. We also saw that the movement in the universe does not occur for necessity, but that it is generated voluntarily what means that the Creation has an intention.