Is it possible that the universe could be eternal??...

[Angrboda]

That's nice.  It doesn't make it any more relevant, or your responses any more cogent.

You're entitled to your opinions.  But, I challenge you to state why my response(s) are not relevant or cogent, and I doubt that I shall from you on this.

Because whether there exists a case of an actual excluded middle depends upon the specifics under discussion, not some bollocks about "Aristotlean dialectics" (*), nor by seeing whether there is or is not an actual case of the excluded middle in a totally different context, such as in the paper you quoted. Mister Agenda posited that there are two possibilities, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. You suggested that a model of the universe that is finite but unbounded violates the dichotomy that Mister Agenda posited. Upon his asking how a universe with no temporal boundary in the past was in any sense not a universe without a beginning, you obliviously simply posted a link to the Wikipedia article without answering his question. The Hawking-Hartle proposes the universe did not have a beginning and thus is simply a species of beginningless universe, not a third possibility. Thus the dichotomy that Mister Agenda posted is valid. None of the shit you've posted has addressed that point.

Now, you can either recant your slander, or explain in what way your responses to me are relevant to the question of whether the Hawking-Hartle universe is or is not categorically distinct from universes without a beginning in general.

(*) The quote from Locke you posted is a species of Liebniz' Law and has no relevance to the discussion.