So you are saying time that never ends is finite?
No. I am not saying that. Please try to keep up for fucks sake.
If you wish to determine what it is that I am saying, reading what I write would be a really good starting point.
a) You create a situation wherein the past may be without beginning, but nevertheless does not meet your definition of 'infinite time', despite being time which is infinite; which is confusing to say the least.
To say "no beginning" is just another way of saying infinite time.
NOT SO FAST - You provided a definition for the phrase 'Infinite time'. YOU DEFINE IT as 'Time that never ends'. To say "no beginning" does not meet that definition. 'Beginning' is not the same thing as 'end'. So under your (admittedly rather odd) rules, NO, it is not 'just another way of saying infinite time'.
It WOULD be, IF we were using MY definition of 'infinite time' - but you were very clear that you wanted to excercise your right to use YOUR definition - and so we must apply that definition rigidly and consistently.
And since infinite time also means time that never ends we could substitute with that and not have any rational conflict or change in meaning.
No, you can't. It means what you define it to mean - and NOTHING ELSE.
It does become a lot easier to understand since "no beginning" is an irrational state.
No, it's not.
Your lack of comfort or comprehension of a thing does not render it 'irrational'.
A thing with no beginning never existed. That makes sense to us.
To YOU. Don't bring me into your irrational world of equivocations and shifting definitions.
The girl is not slim or slender.
She is both.
Infinite time is time that never ends. No matter how you want to describe it.
The existence of synonyms does not imply that all phrases are synonymous.
b) You cannot expect anyone else to start using your confusing and idiosyncratic definition.
I can only lead mules to water.
Mule-herd does seem to be the kind of job that would suit a person of your intellectual capacity, it's true.
Your argument seems to consist of two parts.
1. You seem to be claiming that time that never ends is not a complete definition of infinite time and more is needed.
Yes. Yes I am.
That argument is false. It is a complete definition. It merely is not the only definition.
No, it really is incomplete. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you.
2. You seem to be claiming that the concept of time with "no beginning" is some different thing from time with "no end". Again a false argument. They are merely different ways to describe the same exact thing. Infinite time. They are not a series of connected definitions. They are two separate definitions of the same exact thing.
So here I am at work. My work day started at 8am, and has not yet finished.
Are you seriously going to tell me that this is the same thing as saying that my workday has not yet begun?
Start is NOT a synonym for finish. 'End' can be used for directional entities (in which case 'Beginning' is its antonym) or for non-directional entities (so a rope can be said to have two 'ends'). Time is, very definitely, directional. So 'end', when discussing time, is the OPPOSITE of 'beginning'. They are not only not the same thing; they are exact opposites.
You need to start trying to do some joined-up thinking here; use formal language, where words have unequivocal and clear meanings. STOP confusing yourself by using the vague word 'end', and use 'start' or 'finish' instead, and suddenly all will become clear.
Of course, you won't do this, because precision is the enemy of your primary goal, which is not to admit your gross and continuing error.
