Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time"

[Abaddon_ire]

First of all, if time is infinite, it does not follow that the future already exists, only that events that have not yet occurred will continue to occur forever, that is, that we won't 'run out of future' for things to happen in.

It does follow from the argument I used for it that an infinite line would span infinitely both ways. There would be no end on either end.

If you became addicted to crack cocaine tomorrow, were you addicted to crack cocaine from birth and before?

I doubt it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It does follow from the argument I used for it that an infinite line would span infinitely both ways. There would be no end on either end.

Bi-directionality isn't a requirement of an infinite line.  It can start at my nose and extend unto infinity and be an infinite line. 

Not that your being wrong about this would matter..because nothing in your "argument" followed from your unsound premises anyway. You're positively horrid at propositional logic, and have been for as long as I've been discussing it with you. You need to spend some serious time learning about the requirements of conditional statements. I;ve been explaining this to you for years and everytime you post one of these brilliant "arguments" the same things are predictably wrong with them. It;s always the -same- mistake, with you and your goddisms. Because of this..even if you managed to accidentally happen upon a sound proposition...there can be no reasonable expectation that your arguments will yield a true conclusion.

[Mystic]

It does follow from the argument I used for it that an infinite line would span infinitely both ways. There would be no end on either end.

Bi-directionality isn't a requirement of an infinite line.  It can start at my nose and extend unto infinity and be an infinite line. 

True in mathematical potentials, but actually infinite line cannot have a start. I cannot be limited. That is the definition of infinity is unlimited.

Either time is limited or not. If it is unlimited it cannot be contained in finite space so let alone start from your nose.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the ticket, reassert yourself in defense of a mistake the serves no purpose whatsoever.

[Mystic]

Another thing - this is a side note - but I can prove this argument with this fill as well.

Nose analogy with the line, the line has a start and then begins to span infinite from there.

The present time would be the nose - while the line spans infinitely in the past. Then the start of the line would be the present, spanning infinitely back. And that line would move on to another. So it can't be the start of the line in this sense either. If time is linear, it cannot be that the present which changes moment to moment is the base point of an it's infinite nature. 

This is a different proof but can be substituted to prove time had a start.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another thing - this is a side note - but I can prove this argument with this fill as well.

Nose analogy with the line, the line has a start and then begins to span infinite from there.

The present time would be the nose - while the line spans infinitely in the past. Then the start of the line would be the present, spanning infinitely back. And that line would move on to another. So it can't be the start of the line in this sense either. If time is linear, it cannot be that the present which changes moment to moment is the base point of an it's infinite nature. 

This is a different proof but can be substituted to prove time had a start.

It's easier to simply say that time began.  Not that it will help you prove a god.  So...wasted time, that began when you started trying to prove your god...and will extend unto infinity.

You see...you don;t have to prove it to me, I can accept it for purposes of letting the argument roll without actually believing you, and it won;t lead to the conclusion you desire. No......purpose.......whatsoever.

[Mystic]

Another thing - this is a side note - but I can prove this argument with this fill as well.

Nose analogy with the line, the line has a start and then begins to span infinite from there.

The present time would be the nose - while the line spans infinitely in the past. Then the start of the line would be the present, spanning infinitely back. And that line would move on to another. So it can't be the start of the line in this sense either. If time is linear, it cannot be that the present which changes moment to moment is the base point of an it's infinite nature. 

This is a different proof but can be substituted to prove time had a start.

It's easier to simply say that time began.  Not that it will help you prove a god.  So...wasted time, that began when you started trying to prove your god...and will extend unto infinity.

Time began for sure. I have many proofs of this. This thread is just one.

I shown proof for it many ways in the past. And I just proved it again here.

I also talked about the time zero universe hypothesis creating time thing here. Have a look at that. Then come back to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

All the time you spend reasserting uninformative premises is time you don't spend coming up with a competent argument for your god.

[Abaddon_ire]

It's easier to simply say that time began.  Not that it will help you prove a god.  So...wasted time, that began when you started trying to prove your god...and will extend unto infinity.

Time began for sure. I have many proofs of this. This thread is just one.

I shown proof for it many ways in the past. And I just proved it again here.

I also talked about the time zero universe hypothesis creating time thing here. Have a look at that. Then come back to me.

Nope. There is no problem in science with the idea of finite time, and tough luck for you, the gaps into which you must shoehorn your chosen deity grow ever smaller. At some level, it has to bother you that your deity has been reduced from moving mountains on a whim to maybe moving an electron if he/she/it/housecat can find one.

[Mystic]

Don't hide behind the word science.