Aquinas, Logic & The First Cause. (Thread 1)

[jkiernan56]

If I can just weigh in with my 2 cents. I agree that it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of causal events. If there is an infinte past, at this point in time, T1 an infinite number of past events would have occured. However, an event T2, a trillion, trillion, billion years ago an infinite number of past events would still have occured. Therefore the same amount of past events would have occured before both T1 and T2 (i.e. an infinite number), yet T1 and T2 are seperated by a trillion, trillion, billion years. This is self-contradictory (and renders time meaningless) and therefore the existence of an actually infinite set of past events is impossible.

Mathmatically, I’m not so quite sure I agree with this analysis that it is “impossible to traverse an infinite series of causal events” using the example given above.

Take A1 as the starting reference point. A1 to T1 has infinite past events. A1 to T2 has infinite past events. The difference between T1 and T2 is a finite number of events (a trillion, trillion, billion years). What is the contradiction? That both A1 to T1 and A1 to T2 both have infinite past events? But logically there is a difference between the two, that both cannot have infinite past events? Please help me out here. Thanks.

 

[TheWhim]

Each individual effect takes on the nature of a cause only by accident; they are not “cause” by nature of being. Hence; if the universe is infinite, then it is an infinite chain of potentiality. The potentiality is left unexplained as if to come out of nothing. In reality, you have an infinite effect with out a cause.

I will take this as an opportunity to understand Thomas argument better. Since now I wasn’t convinced by it and maybe you can do so by explanation. Given all you have said, it seems not logically necessary for me to conclude that “the whole”, that is, change and potentiality in itself need a transcendental cause and that a chain of infinite change is not self-explanatory. Why shouldn’t it be? Of course the potentiality is left unexplained; the reason being that such an explanation was obviated by positing a self-explanatory, namely everlasting universe.

Howeve, I fully agree that an infinite set of actual events cannot be traversed and that the present would never have been reached if indeed the past were infinite. Dr. Lane Craig has argued convincingly in many articles this way; take a look at www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[JDaniel]

I will take this as an opportunity to understand Thomas argument better. Since now I wasn’t convinced by it and maybe you can do so by explanation. Given all you have said, it seems not logically necessary for me to conclude that “the whole”, that is, change and potentiality in itself need a transcendental cause and that a chain of infinite change is not self-explanatory. Why shouldn’t it be? Of course the potentiality is left unexplained; the reason being that such an explanation was obviated by positing a self-explanatory, namely everlasting universe.

Hello, Whim:

(Apologies for the barge-in.)

Consider the meaning, without limiting it to any particular definition, of the word, and concept, “Infinite”. As an adjective, which is its primary form, it is generally employed for the sole purpose of modifying, or extending the meaning of, a noun. Now, the problem is that the only ontologically real nouns we have that we can modify with an adjective are finite, with the exception of the noun, God (as well as His determinates, when they are related to Him.). So, to call any ontological, finite exigency an “infinite” anything is to create the mother of all myths. There is no such being in reality, nor can there be. It is inexorably a mental fabrication.

Now, a “Real” infinity (or, infinities) does not exist - not because there hasn’t been enough time for one to achieve the required number (to be called “infinity”), but, because it is impossible per definitionem. Consider what I just said: “…for one to achieve the required number…” Can any number be postulated as the number of “infinity”? Such a number, in itself, would have no other choice but to be finite, as one (unit, atom, muon, etc.) could still be added, then another, then another, ad infinitum. To define a transfinite number as infinite, is to be as lazy as the incomprehensibility of a transfinite.

The same is true of cause-effect events. If a truly infinite cause-effect - cause-effect - cause-effect chain existed, it would have no beginning and no end, or, from the positive, it would be beginning-less and endless. Thus, there could be no middle. But, there is a middle as we can plainly see. Thus, the cause-effect - cause-effect chain must be finite. Therefore, it must have a beginning cause and that beginning cause must be - of necessity - necessary, i.e., in no need of a cause.

However, I fully agree that an infinite set of actual events cannot be traversed and that the present would never have been reached if indeed the past were infinite. Dr. Lane Craig has argued convincingly in many articles this way; take a look at www.reasonablefaith.org

Good to talk with you.

jd

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi jkiernan56,

Mathmatically, I’m not so quite sure I agree with this analysis that it is “impossible to traverse an infinite series of causal events” using the example given above.

Take A1 as the starting reference point. A1 to T1 has infinite past events. A1 to T2 has infinite past events. The difference between T1 and T2 is a finite number of events (a trillion, trillion, billion years). What is the contradiction? That both A1 to T1 and A1 to T2 both have infinite past events? But logically there is a difference between the two, that both cannot have infinite past events? Please help me out here. Thanks.

Not sure I understand what you mean here sorry. Let me try to demonstrate it a bit better. We have two events, E1 and E2, separated by a time t. Before E1 and E2 there are an infinite number of events, yet between E1 and E2 there are a finite number of events. Let the number of events before E1 be called NE1, NE2 for E2, and Nt for the number of events in the finite time separating E1 and E2.

Under standard logic, we could say: NE1 + Nt = NE2. However, if NE1 and NE2 are infinite what we now have is NE1 = NE2 = inf. So you can see the logical contradiction. An infinite is a mathematical idea, but when it is made into an actuality it gives logically contradictory results.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why shouldn’t it be? Of course the potentiality is left unexplained

This is precisely why it is impossible. If you do not ultimately explain the potentiality in change, then there is no reason for it to exist. Saying that there is an infinite chain of causality, doesn’t make its existence anymore reasonable, since the potentiality of its existence is infinite and is always precedent to a cause. You have not truly explained anything by an infinite universe accept to ignore the necessity of an efficient cause.

In any case, a chain of causal events is a chain of numbers. If that chain is infinite, then there is no ultimate number in the past. The sum total of events would not be a number, simply because one has transcended all numbers; in which case you are no longer talking about a number of something. Which is absurd. If the past is numbered, then it is countable, which means its finite and has a sum total. An infinite past with numbers doesn’t make any sense. Neither can one say that the past is potentially infinite, since all past events are actual. To say that something is limitless, can be applied to a potential infinite, but it cannot be meaningfully applied to an actual infinite.

 

[Katholish]

JDaniel,

But, there are a number of definitions, all of which are linguistic attempts to explain/define the essence of the concept. And, each one expresses its own particular “bent”, or “flavor”. Here are some:

“bottomless, boundless, countless, endless, illimitable, immeasurable, immense, incomprehensible, indefinite, inexhaustible, innumerable, measureless, no end of, no end to, no holds barred, no strings, numberless, unbounded, uncalculable, undefined, unending, unfathomable, unlimited, untold, vast, wide-open” - Thesaurus.com

Without going through each one, one by one, you can simply look at the derivatives of the words and conclude the “flavor” meant (intended by the user). So, why must we use the one you’ve chosen?

A proper philosophical definition is not subject to subjective interpretation. It includes a genus and specific difference and includes all things that are included under the term and excludes all things that are not. Limitlessness is the specific difference and I suppose attribute is the genus. Almost all of the meanings you listed essentially mean limitlessness, though I will grant that some have the vaguer meaing of “too much to measure”, but this meaning is clearly analogous to limitlessness.

Infinity does in fact properly mean limitlessness. It isn’t really a debated matter (outside of this forum apparently).

I had asked you, “When we say that a thing is infinite, we do not mean a thing is infinite in every respect.” and you responded, “Yes, we do.”

I might point out then that you have limited your concept to something absurd. Not even God is infinite in every respect, but only in respect of perfection. God does not have infinite mass. He does not have infinite width. He is not composed of infinitely many things. It is silly to say that infinity must apply to every aspect of a thing. There are some attributes which simply cannot apply to God, and your definition of infinite certainly could not apply to anything but God.

You then claim that your definition is a “realist” one and is “that it lacks nothing”. This, however, is the meaning of perfection, not infinity. How would you distinguish the two? I might also point out that not a single meaning from that long list you pulled from a dictionary means “lacking nothing”.

Is God a different kind of infinity from the infinity you’re describing?

No, the definition of infinity applies the same way to God as it does to a theoretically infinite material object. With God we are speaking of an infinity of perfection, in the case of the material object we are speaking of an infinity of length, width, height, or some other attribute.

You can’t even think infinity, you can only think of the seven-letter word.

Trust me, you can think of an infinity. I am doing it right now. Infinity isn’t a logical contradiction like a square-circle (which truly is something that you cannot think of). One might say that we picture it imperfectly, but the same is true of God. Unless, you are suggesting that we cannot think of God either…which would be interesting.

The Catholic Encyclopedia section you quoted supports my argument sufficiently. The only thing there that could possibly be misinterpreted as a contradiction of something I have said is the phrase, “it is that which cannot be attained by successive addition”, but I would suggest that the author refers to a finite succession. He is saying that an infinity cannot be cause by a non-infinite thing. If the succession itself were already infinite, then it would seem to be able to produce something which in turn could be considered infinite (such as time in the case before us.)

 

[Katholish]

MindoverMatter,

Clearly my arguments were in respect of “physical events” in time; not abstract numbers. To have an infinite number of physical events, is to transcend all descriptive numbers. Which means you would be transcending all physical events. Which doesn’t make any sense, since you would no longer be talking about physical events. In other words, there can be no such thing as an infinite “number” of events. An infinite is not a quantity of something. A true infinite, transcends quantity; and thus transcends time.

If you cannot make up an infinite by adding one number to another, then what makes you think that you can meaningfully apply an infinite number of something to the past?

In any case, infinite or not, Aquinas’s arguments do not fail in proving the necessity of a first cause.

The obvious thing is point out here is that there are an infinite number of events in the future (and hence in time). Your arguments against an infinite past seem to inadvertently be attacking our infinite future. I am curious to know if you have gone so far as to deny the possibility of eternal life?

To have an infinite number of physical events, is to transcend all descriptive numbers.

Descriptive numbers have infinite possibility. The assertion that an infinite number of physical events would have to transcend number itself doesn’t make much sense to me.

BTW, if it wasn’t already clear, I am not arguing against Thomas’s proof, but am actually arguing for a position which Thomas himself held.

If there is a finite moment in the past that exists an infinite number of events away from the present, it shouldn’t be hard to realize the impossibility of reaching the present moment. You can walk a finite distance, but it is meaningless to say that one can walk from an infinite distance away to some other point.

How does this argument also not deny eternal life?

 

[Katholish]

JDaniel,

Consider the meaning, without limiting it to any particular definition, of the word, and concept, “Infinite”. As an adjective, which is its primary form, it is generally employed for the sole purpose of modifying, or extending the meaning of, a noun. Now, the problem is that the only ontologically real nouns we have that we can modify with an adjective are finite, with the exception of the noun, God (as well as His determinates, when they are related to Him.). So, to call any ontological, finite exigency an “infinite” anything is to create the mother of all myths. There is no such being in reality, nor can there be. It is inexorably a mental fabrication.

Do you realize that you are denying the reality of attributes? Things like number, quality, and quantity are real things, you can even call them “ontologically real” if you prefer. They actually exist. Furthermore, many attributes have the possibility of infinity, such as number, quality, quantity, etc.

You did catch that part in the Catholic Encyclopedia that said that the term infinity primarily refers to material things, right? Wouldn’t that suggest that it isn’t impossible to speak about infinite material things?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

For those of you who are interested, i have made yet another thread about Aquinas. Aquinas’s arguments are based upon brutal logic, there is no place for flights of fancy in the five proofs. To think that Aquinas must be wrong, before stating irrefutable evidence, doesn’t say anything about his arguments, but rather it exposes the bitter prejudice that people have about the idea of proving Gods existence. They hate God. However, Logic tells me that things always happen for a reason; otherwise there is no reason for them to happen. Therefore they ought not to happen in so far as logic is concerned. This truth cannot change, and is absolutely true regardless of whether or not things appear to us as if to change without a cause. It is never reasonable to think that something can come out of nothing by its own. Unless, we refuse the law of non-contradiction, which is precisely what the atheists and agnostics on this forum have been doing. We cannot escape the fact that there must be such a thing as a timeless cause that explains its own being. If something changes, it is because something causes it to change. I hope that Warpspeedpetey Leaves a comment or two. So, heres my argument.

1. Time, merely means that physical beings are in a state of change. This does not mean that all beings must be identified with change (if I’m correct, this is an example of the fallacy of composition). At most, it can only mean that there are beings that are in a state of change or becoming. Therefore to say that there is no “before” time, can only mean that there is no “change” before time. It does not mean that there is no “being” before time. Please note, that no one is saying that there is no such thing as a being that is not caused. One is only saying that anything which begins to change has been caused to change by previous conditions or actualities.

2. Before there can be any change at all, there has to be such a thing as “being”. Therefore “being” transcends time and is the cause of it.

3. If we accept that there is no change before time, then whatever exists before time, must be timeless and pure actuality; as in, its very being is expression without potentiality. To put it another way, the First cause must be by its very nature a changeless “cause”; as in, it does not “become” a cause, rather it is a timeless cause in respect of its nature.

4. And as for the nature of that cause, such a being cannot be an inert physical object, since inert physical entities only change because something has caused them to change, regardless of whether it is a classical cause or something we know nothing about. The potentiality to change cannot come out of no-where, unless we choose to violate the law of non-contradiction.

5. Therefore, the first cause cannot be said to have a reasonable causal relationship with the universe, unless it has in its being a personal nature with an eternal will to create entities.

6. Also, such a being has to be perfect, since there can be no potentiality in a first cause. Therefore all things that are proper to the nature of a first cause, must already be actual and realized from all eternity, in so far it is the cause of all beginnings. Hence the saying that God is pure actuality.

Conclusion. It is not a matter of comprehending the nature of the first cause, but rather it is about understanding what it must be, regardless of how we may feel about it aesthetically speaking.

The Deity of the Five Ways is not the God of religion & theism; let alone the Heavenly Father of the NT. It (he ?) is barely more than an explanatory device, a machine constructed of concepts. It is a huge step to go from the self-contemplating Deity of Aristotle to the HF, & another huge step from him, to the Deity of Judaeo-Christian-RC dogma. ​

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,

Do you realize that you are denying the reality of attributes? Things like number, quality, and quantity are real things, you can even call them “ontologically real” if you prefer. They actually exist. Furthermore, many attributes have the possibility of infinity, such as number, quality, quantity, etc.

Katholish:

Show me “number”, not a number of ontological things. I want to see, taste and feel “number”.

Show me “quantity” or “quality”. I don’t want to see a thing that has the character of “quality”, and, I don’t want to see a “quantity” of things. I want to see, taste and feel “quantity” and “quality”. I don’t want any of these to exist ideationally, nor do I want them to only exist as modifiers of an ontological thing, or things.

You did catch that part in the Catholic Encyclopedia that said that the term infinity primarily refers to material things, right? Wouldn’t that suggest that it isn’t impossible to speak about infinite material things?

Yes, that was my point, exactly.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

The Deity of the Five Ways is not the God of religion & theism; let alone the Heavenly Father of the NT. It (he ?) is barely more than an explanatory device, a machine constructed of concepts. It is a huge step to go from the self-contemplating Deity of Aristotle to the HF, & another huge step from him, to the Deity of Judaeo-Christian-RC dogma. ​

Not so: the Five Ways prove beyond doubt that a real thing, or being, must exist, and must exist outside of our minds. St. Thomas suggests that it is that which we call God. What St. Thomas is delivering to us is the historicity of God and His present presence which is necessary for intermediate and lesser things to exist.

jd

 

[Katholish]

JDaniel,

Yes, that was my point, exactly.

My apologies… there seems to have been a typo in my last post. I meant to say that since the Catholic Encyclopedia says that infinity is applied primarily to material things, does that mean it is POSSIBLE to have infinite material things? (I accidently said impossible instead of possible)

Show me “number”, not a number of ontological things. I want to see, taste and feel “number”.

Show me “quantity” or “quality”. I don’t want to see a thing that has the character of “quality”, and, I don’t want to see a “quantity” of things. I want to see, taste and feel “quantity” and “quality”. I don’t want any of these to exist ideationally, nor do I want them to only exist as modifiers of an ontological thing, or things.

St. Thomas, following Aristotle, explains that there are 10 categories of being. (Anything that has being is an ontological thing–it really exists). The first category of being is substance. As the word indicates, these are the things which “stand under” (From the Latin stare which means to stand and the Latin sub which means under). These substances under lie everything that we can see, and it is fair to say that a substance is what a thing truly is. The substance of a material thing, however, cannot exist without some things being added to it. I am afraid that you are confusing substance with being. Being is something common to all of the categories, not just substance.

The second category is quantity, then quality, relation, etc. All of these things are real. If the reality of these other 9 categories are denied, we start running into serious problems in matters of faith. As St. Thomas points out, the basis for differentiation in the Trinity is real relations. If the relations within the Trinity were not real, there couldn’t be three Persons.

Just because an accident has to inhere in a substance, doesn’t mean that it isn’t real (meaning it has ontological being–though I would point out that “ontological” means real being, so it is a little redundant to to use both terms).

JDaniel, I want to ask you a question I also just posed to MindoverMatter, and that is, your arguments also seem to attack the idea of an infinite future as well as an infinite past. It would seem, however, that eternal life is rightly considered an infinite future, and since we will have a material body, it would seem possible for something material to exist for an infinitely long time. Could you explain how you are not also denying eternal life?

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,

St. Thomas, following Aristotle, explains that there are 10 categories of being. (Anything that has being is an ontological thing–it really exists). The first category of being is substance. As the word indicates, these are the things which “stand under” (From the Latin stare which means to stand and the Latin sub which means under). These substances under lie everything that we can see, and it is fair to say that a substance is what a thing truly is. The substance of a material thing, however, cannot exist without some things being added to it. I am afraid that you are confusing substance with being. Being is something common to all of the categories, not just substance.

This is how I meant ontological being (sorry for the confusion):

“Physical objects are beings; certainly they are said to be in the simple sense that they exist all around us. So a house is a being, a person’s body is a being, a tree is a being, a cloud is a being, and so on. They are beings because, and in the sense that, they are physical objects. One might also call them bodies, or physical particulars, or concrete things, or matter, or maybe substances (but bear in mind the word ‘substance’ has some special philosophical meanings).” - From Wikipedia

“Substance” is one of the 10 categories of Aristotle, too. All of these things are “real” only insofar as they can be said to be in something, or, of something. I am meaning the second word, the “something”. I used the wording because it was a set of words that, hopefully, would have been readily understood, within these fora, to mean physical objects. (I didn’t expect you to come along and get nit-picky) :thankyou:

Now, the categories are, no doubt, real, but, only insofar as they are said to be of or in something that is either a physical object, or group or set of physical objects, such as a man, or a horse (Aristotle’s two favorites), or certain things that we consider metaphysical objects, such as God or Angels.

The second category is quantity, then quality, relation, etc. All of these things are real.

As defined above.

If the reality of these other 9 categories are denied, we start running into serious problems in matters of faith. As St. Thomas points out, the basis for differentiation in the Trinity is real relations. If the relations within the Trinity were not real, there couldn’t be three Persons.

I assure you that I do not deny any of the categories. Let me make that perfectly clear, as a former President used to say.

Just because an accident has to inhere in a substance, doesn’t mean that it isn’t real (meaning it has ontological being [in, or, of]–though I would point out that “ontological” means real being, so it is a little redundant to to use both terms).

Correct. A little redundancy never hurt anyone, though.

JDaniel, I want to ask you a question I also just posed to MindoverMatter, and that is, your arguments also seem to attack the idea of an infinite future as well as an infinite past.

Actually, I do not. You are in no way short on the knowledge that I do not know what existed on the aft side of the big bang. Perhaps energy, but, then energy has mass and is real. Also, you are in no way deficient in the knowledge that I do not know what will exist in the infinite future. One cannot deny infinity with regard to the past or the future. And, neither will I.

It would seem, however, that eternal life is rightly considered an infinite future, and since we will have a material body,

But, we don’t know how. We are told that we will be re-united with our physical bodies at some time in the future. I assume (yikes!) that this doesn’t mean that we will all look like the creatures depicted in creepy-crawly movies.

it would seem possible for something material to exist for an infinitely long time. Could you explain how you are not also denying eternal life?

I do not deny eternal life. I am inclined to agree with you, in the sense that because it would seem that even in a frozen, entropied state, a dead universe might still have eternality as a “dead universe”. Also, I am of the opinion that once God creates a thing, although it may change form or fall to pieces, it is from that point forward, eternal.

But, that is not the same as saying that the thing is instantaneously eternal. It is eternal in precisely the same way as quantum physics and quantum math describe infinity: not as an achieved state, but, rather in a state forever seeking achievement. In other words, growing ever greater, what ever that “greater” would be.

jd

 

[1holycatholic]

It would seem, however, that eternal life is rightly considered an infinite future, and since we will have a material body, it would seem possible for something material to exist for an infinitely long time.

You are confounding “infinite” and “eternal.”

It also appears that you are assigning a symmetry to time that doesn’t exist.

 

[Katholish]

JDaniel,

Actually, I do not. You are in no way short on the knowledge that I do not know what existed on the aft side of the big bang. Perhaps energy, but, then energy has mass and is real. Also, you are in no way deficient in the knowledge that I do not know what will exist in the infinite future. One cannot deny infinity with regard to the past or the future. And, neither will I.

I am confused by your last statement there. It seems that you are not denying an infinity of past time. Perhaps you could clarify. I thought a denial of the very possibility of an infinite past time was your position in this discussion. (It was, after, what I originally took issue with).

 

[Katholish]

1holycatholic,

You are confounding “infinite” and “eternal.”

Actually I am not confounding the terms, but I understand why you might suggest that. The term eternal can be used in two ways as St. Thomas explains. Properly speaking, eternity applies only to God and means existing outside of time in a perpetual now. Eterninty also has a less proper, but still aceptable meaning as “an infinite length of time”. It is in this secondary meaning of eternal which I apply to future time, and to the theoretical possibility of past time.

It also appears that you are assigning a symmetry to time that doesn’t exist.

I don’t entirely understand what you mean. If you are objecting that the universe did not in fact experience an infinite past, then I would agree. I am not arguing that the universe is in fact eternal, only that it could have been, and knowledge of the universe’s beginning in time comes only from revelation.

 

[JDaniel]

I am confused by your last statement there. It seems that you are not denying an infinity of past time. Perhaps you could clarify. I thought a denial of the very possibility of an infinite past time was your position in this discussion. (It was, after, what I originally took issue with).

Here is your opening argument:

Why does time have to have a beginning? Certainly the idea of an infinite chain of causes in time is not logically inconsistent. Modern athiests simply seem to have their own version of this ancient idea. They might say there was a Big Bang that started the universe, but when pressed, they will admit that even the Big Bang had a cause, and that cause must have had a cause.

It was the apparent meaning of the bolded words that I took as your argument, as opposed to the question just before it. But, I see that I might have taken it out of context. If that is the case, I apologize.

Now, to answer your question: Whether or not an infinite chain of causes is logically consistent. It may not be. Time is the measure of motion. If no motion existed prior to the big bang, then there could not be time. Hence, no infinity of time pre big bang.

Furthermore, if we add the additional qualifier of “chain of causes” then we are limiting the material which finds itself in time to the physical. Unless you want to include that which we have no revelation of, or science of, and postulate that God might have been processing other God-causes for an infinity prior to the big bang. However, we have no reason to suspect that. Anyway, God is infinite and outside of time. So, an “infinite chain of causes” would clearly be inconsistent with the meaning of “infinite”. And, there could not have been an infinity of time aft of the big bang.

jd

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic,

Actually I am not confounding the terms, but I understand why you might suggest that. The term eternal can be used in two ways as St. Thomas explains. Properly speaking, eternity applies only to God and means existing outside of time in a perpetual now. Eterninty also has a less proper, but still aceptable meaning as “an infinite length of time”. It is in this secondary meaning of eternal which I apply to future time, and to the theoretical possibility of past time.

I don’t entirely understand what you mean. If you are objecting that the universe did not in fact experience an infinite past, then I would agree. I am not arguing that the universe is in fact eternal, only that it could have been, and knowledge of the universe’s beginning in time comes only from revelation.

Future time is potentially infinite. Past time is actual. There are no actual infinities.

Infinite past time is impossible because it entails a contradiction.

 

[Katholish]

JDaniel,

Now, to answer your question: Whether or not an infinite chain of causes is logically consistent. It may not be. Time is the measure of motion. If no motion existed prior to the big bang, then there could not be time. Hence, no infinity of time pre big bang.

I am taking it as certain that the universe did not have a beginning in time. I am rather arguing that if God had created it differently (but with physical laws being the same) that it there need not have been a beginning in time. Hence, that there could have been an infinite extension of time.

For precision sake, I could prefer to say that time is a measure of change as opposed to motion.

I think we could include the possibility that the Big Bang didn’t have to happen in the supposition.

 

[Katholish]

Future time is potentially infinite. Past time is actual. There are no actual infinities.

Infinite past time is impossible because it entails a contradiction.

A logical contradiction regarding what could have been, or a logical contradition with what actually happened?

I am only arguing what could have been.