But perhaps the motion of the one consists in change of place?

Perhaps so, if it moves at all.

And have we not already shown that it cannot be in anything?

Yes.

Then its coming into being in anything is still more impossible; is it not?

I do not see why.

Why, because anything which comes into being in anything, can neither as
yet be in that other thing while still coming into being, nor be altogether
out of it, if already coming into being in it.

Certainly not.

And therefore whatever comes into being in another must have parts, and
then one part may be in, and another part out of that other; but that which
has no parts can never be at one and the same time neither wholly within
nor wholly without anything.

True.

And is there not a still greater impossibility in that which has no parts,
and is not a whole, coming into being anywhere, since it cannot come into
being either as a part or as a whole?