I have arguments.
If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.
If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.
If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.
This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.
So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.
Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.
It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.
<snip>
For your information the only argument that can dispute this is an argument that shows that an infinite amount of time finishes. An argument that shows an infinite amount of time in the future is an amount of time that finishes would be an argument to dispute this argument.
Contrary to what you say here, there is no need to show that an infinite amount of time can pass (or finish, end, elapse etc). This is because we are discussing the concept of absolute time, not whether time can actually do what our concept of it says it does. The point of this discussion, based on your arguments, as you have reposted them again and again, and if we can understand them at all given the poor wording, is whether our ordinary concept of absolute time is somehow illogical, i.e. self-contradictory. That's all there is to this discussion.
Now, your argument fails to prove that our ordinary concept of absolute time is somehow illogical. So let's look again at the main point of your argument as it is quoted above:
An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end.
First, we seem to agree that "infinite" just means "without an end". However, to conclude as you do that an infinite amount of time cannot have an end is obviously wrong. Let's see why in detail.
To infer that an infinite amount of time cannot have an end from the fact that "infinite" means "without an end" is to confuse the meaning of word "infinite" and the meaning of the expression "infinite time". In our ordinary concept of absolute time where the past is conceived as infinite, a period of time that has no beginning but has an end is an infinite amount of time. The use of the word "infinite" in the expression "infinite past" is not to express the idea that an infinite past has no end at all, as you appear to believe. It is only to express the idea that an infinite past has no beginning, i.e. an end if we are talking with the idea of going in the direction of the past rather than in the direction of the future. Thus, there is obviously no limit (no end) in an infinite past in the direction of the past coming from any time in the past. However, there is obviously a limit in an infinite past in the direction of the future, again coming from any point in the past. That's obviously true and that's just the ordinary concept of absolute time with an infinite past. And this is merely an elicitation of the concept. This has nothing to do with whether time itself is actually like this or not.
Further, it is obvious that there is nothing contradictory therefore in saying that there is an end to an infinite past, which may be the last day before yesterday if we count in days, or the last second if we count in seconds etc. The notion of end is part and parcel of the idea of past. The past is time that has already passed and therefore there is necessarily an end to it (although, not necessarily a last instant). The end of the past may be the last day, or the last second etc. that's just passed depending on whether we decide to count in days or seconds etc. Again, this is merely an elicitation of the concept.
Thus, any period of time in the past starting at some definite point in the past is effectively in itself an end to the past going in the direction of the future. So, not only has an infinite past an end, but it has an infinite number of ends even though it doesn't have an end going in the direction of the past.
So, funnily enough, you are effectively infinity many times over completely wrong in saying that an infinite past has no end! Which I guess is the correct measure of the insanity of your claim.
So, to recap, your mistake is to construe wrongly, and claim wrongly, that the meaning of the expression "infinite past" is "past without end" (i.e. without any end at all) on the ground that "infinite" means "without end". This is truly a pathetic mistake, possibly caused by your low skills in the English language, but probably not given that so many people have explained to you your mistake over so many pages. Only a few people around here do manage to achive on occasions such a level of obtuseness as you do here. This has to be a record. Your mistake is not even a logical one. It's a linguistic one and yet not one that could be properly explained merely by poor skills in English. You would have a lot of work to do before you could argue anything meaningfully.
EB
