The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

A Debate on Time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,241 times Debate No: 14058
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (4)




Here's how this debate will work:

In Round 1, CON will choose to argue either that time is finite or that time is infinite.

In Round 2 through 5, PRO will attempt to prove that my opponent's chosen argument is logically impossible.

Whether or not CON can prove the other possibility to be impossible is irrelevant to this debate; if both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO. In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins.

Finally, good luck, m9samman, and may this debate be worthy of the front page.


I thank mongeese for this debate.

My position will be that time is finite, as opposed to my opponent's advocacy which will be that time is infinite. So that we have an equal number of rounds to debate, I will only provide definitions in this round, and arguments can take place in rounds 2-5.

All definitions from



having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.


immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
Mathematics .
not finite.
(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.

All definitions from

Thanks again.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank m9samman for accepting the debate and laying out some definitions.

However, it seems that we have forgotten a definition for "time." Using my opponent's chosen dictionary, only one definition of "time" seems to fit this debate:

"[T]he system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another." [1]

Now, time is a sequence of events. This requires something to occur. If, at any point in time, nothing is happeninng at all in the entire universe (a state which shall henceforth be referred to as inaction), then time will not pass, and effectively end. In this state of inaction, since the universe is never changing state at all, it can never reach a state of action. Since change continues to occur, the universe must never have reached a state of inaction.

It only follows, therefore, that the universe must always be in a series of events that change its overall state, to avoid freezing and essentially ending time. If the universe had a starting point, then the universe would have to change from a state of inaction to a state of action, which I have demonstrated to be impossible; the universe could never have been in such a state of inaction. The universe must be in perpetual and infinite motion in order for motion to continuously exist. Given that motion currently exists, therefore, time cannot be finite, and must be infinite.

I do believe that that will start the debate off nicely for now. With that, I leave the floor to my opponent. Good luck.



Thank you mongeese, for kicking off the debate rather interestingly.

I will be arguing from a theistic standpoint, as well as a logical one.

== Content ==
o Arguments (con case)
o Rebuttal
o Sources

o Arguments

1. Infinite time violates basic mathematics.

Infinite, as defined in the previous round, implies a state of boundlessness at which there exists no beginning or ending. So, the timeline is, therefore, everything from (-infinity, infinity); the current state of time is in between the two non-defined bounds. So, let's divide this into two hypothetical situations for the sake of clarity.

A. Our beautiful memories.

If we had a video that has recorded everything that ever happened from (-infinity) time until now, and we stuck it in a VCR, we would arrive at a conundrum. In order to watch the memories sparked by humanity, dinosaurs, etc., we would have to click rewind. The rewind state would persist infinitely until we reached the start; this is impossible.

B. We've arrived at infinity?

If we were to hypothetically pause time at this very moment, how much time has elapsed? By my opponent's position, an infinite amount of time has elapsed. It's like counting from negative infinity to zero; it is impossible, just like infinite time is impossible.

o Rebuttal

My opponent claims simply that for time to have "began", there must have been a state of inaction previously; the problem arises that we can't go from a state of inaction to action. But he misses the link- we can't go from inaction to action (or vice versa) *without a cause*. Being theist, I argue that this cause is God. God exists outside of the realm of space-time, being its creator, and therefore could definitely be the spark that brought action from inaction.

If the argument is washed in the sense that we can't prove or disprove God, we have to drop both my rebuttal and my opponent's case because both of our arguments are viable in our own worlds. Based on what Pro responds, I will act accordingly.

Until then, thanks for the debate, and I'll hand it back over to mongeese.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, m9samman, for your response.

My opponent starts with contentions against an infinite time. I have no qualms with them, as I have used them myself in almost the exact same way. However, as outlined in Round 1, my task is not to prove infinite time to be possible, but finite time to be impossible. Therefore, I can only move on to his rebuttal of my contentions.

My opponent claims that the universe can go from inaction to action, provided a cause. However, what caused this cause? My opponent points to God as the cause for the universe's shift from inaction to action. This reasoning is flawed, however; is this not in itself an event, a part of time? The putting into motion of time by God would in itself be an event before all following events in time, and by the given definition of time, would be an event in time. Logically, God cannot start time, because the starting of time would require an event before time, even though any event that is sequentially linked to time is part of time.

I can see only one path that my opponent can now take, which is claiming that God can defy logic in triggering an event that is not part of time itself. However, given that this would mean that logic would have to be defied for a finite time, finite time would still be logically impossible, so I would still have met my burden as outlined in Round 1.

As a final note, I would like to point out that at any point that I use "universe" in this debate, I mean the totality of everything that exists [1]. Arguing that God exists outside of the universe would be futile, as for God to exist, He must be in the universe, as the concept of the universe would expand to include God, wherever He may be, just as time does. My opponent would run into the same flaw that I outlined in the above paragraph.

Well, good luck, m9samman, although I don't think I've left you much room to work with. We'll just see what you can do with it.



Thanks again.

My opponent drops my arguments, but just apply them as refutations against infinite time. They are essentially extended. Moreover, as refutations *against* infinite time, the play into the con case as reasons *for* finite time. Going unrefuted, extend them into the fourth round. The reason being, that, if I prove infinite time to be impossible, finite time MUST be possible because the two positions are clearly mutually exclusive. As of now, Con leads the round.

Mongeese's defense is a misconception of theology, and an attempt to define me out of the round somehow. Although I don't appreciate arguments from semantics, I will do my best to refute them.

First; the putting in motion from inaction to action is NOT an event in time, for the reason that time has not yet happened. The shift is the beginning of time, which proffers finite time as an explanation.

My opponent's next paragraph is a non-sequitur. He claims "given that this [God defying logic] would mean that logic would have to be defied for a finite time, finite time would still be logically impossible..."

1) If God begins time, time remains unaffected; rather, it begins.
2) My position does not argue that God defied logic to begin time, anyways.
3) (God defying logic --> Finite time is impossible) is not a logical conclusion.

My opponent's argument from the universe is rather laughable. He claims that God must be in the universe, simply because he defines the universe as "everything that exists". The problem is, as I would hope my opponent would agree, God created the universe. If I created a shoe box, it does not mean that I have to be in the shoe box; if a building company created a magnificent edifice that is inclusive of all aspects of life, it does not mean that the employers and employees of the company have to be in the building. For the same reason, God does not have to be in the universe.

On a side note, my username is m93samman; not m9samman. I thought you made a mistake the first time, but it happened twice. I'm not offended, just pointing it out for the sake of relief from debate.

With that, I wish Pro luck.
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank m93samman (I think I have it right this time) for his response.

He claims that if he can demonstrate infinite time to be impossible, then finite time must be possible. However, this is irrelevant. If I cannot prove infinite time to be logically impossible in this debate, then my opponent wins. Otherwise, I win. If we both prove our opponent's oppositions to be logically impossible, then we've come to some impasse; however, in that case, I would still win, as I had still achieved my initial objective of proving finite time to be logically impossible. And I quote, from Round 1:

"Whether or not CON can prove the other possibility to be impossible is irrelevant to this debate; if both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO. In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins."

My opponent claims that my arguments rely on semantics. However, it is only semantics in the fact that the definition is much more inclusive than my opponent would lead you to believe. The greater fault in debate would be to misconstrue a definition to mean what it does not, rather than showing the definition for what it really is.

Before I begin with my real arguments, I'd like to clarify what I meant last round when I introduced a definition of "universe." I meant that any time at all that I ever said "universe" in any of my arguments, I was referring to "the totality of everything that exists." My opponent protests that his understanding of the universe excludes God. That's perfectly fine. If he were to define "universe," it would probably be the totality of everything that exists except God. It's important for the readers and my opponent to know that when I refer to the state of action or inaction of the universe, I mean the combined system of God and the universe. It would be the same as putting together my opponent's understanding of the universe and God in a single system. A comparable system would be a scientist and a fish tank; while the scientist is separate from the fish tank, they are in the same system, with the scientist triggering events in the fish tank at his will.

My opponent's first argument claims that God's decision to put the universe in motion is not an event in time, because "time has not happened yet." My opponent does not argue against the idea that this event of God putting the universe in motion is an event, and rightly so. He also seems to agree that the events of his concept of time directly followed God's initiation of motion in the universe. Therefore, by the definition of "time," such an event would be part of time, and unable to precede time. It would be impossible for time to still not have happened, because the event of putting the universe in motion, "starting time," would itself be an event that has a sequential relation with the Big Bang, or whatever my opponent believes occured at what he considers the "start" of time, and would therefore be a part of time by definition.

My opponent then protests my claim that if he must invoke an ability of God to defy logic for the possibility of a finite time, then finite time would still be logically impossible. Once my opponent disregards logic, he can no longer show finite time to be logically possible, but only illogically possible. My burden in this debate, as established in Round 1, is "to prove that my opponent's chosen argument is logically impossible." Therefore, once my opponent disregards logic, I have won the debate.

My opponent also slips in the claim that if God begins time, time would not be affected, but rather would "begin." This seems rather strange. If we were to assume that time had a starting point, in which the universe shifted from a state of complete inaction to a state filled with action, that would be the largest effect anything could ever have on the universe, short of creating or destroying it. (Note: Read this paragraph, as with all of my other paragraphs, using the definition of "universe" from Round 3.) Triggering something to "begin" is most certainly an effect, and I challenge my opponent to come up with an argument that properly distinguishes the two. Note that since he is trying to refute my argument, he must define "effect" in a way that doesn't contradict the understanding of "effect" that I have already established, which, by my Round 2 arguments, can only be understood to mean the causing of any change in the state of the universe, the most prominent being the change from inaction to action.

He further claims that he does not require God to defy logic, but for God to simultaneously exist outside of time and have sequential effects on the universe, which by definition would be included in time, He must logically exist within time.

My opponent finally claims that God created the universe. He is obviously using a different definition of "universe" than I am, so his arguments are rather irrelevant to mine. I would first contest that God only created "the heavens and earth," as described in Genesis. I'd also like to point out that it is impossible for God to have created the universe under my definition unless He also created Himself, which my opponent may or may not believe, but is irrelevant to God's relation to the universe. My opponent's analogies are confusing. How can a building company build a building that included all aspects of life if they are not in it? If they are not considered aspects of life, then this is fine; however, if they are, then they cannot claim that their building includes all aspects of life unless they themselves were in the building. Similary, God must be in the universe by definition, because the universe is everything, not everything excluding God. Of course, this all depends on the definition of "universe," but as I've said, all of these analogies would depend on how criteria is established and characteristics defined. It may be semantics, but it's rather inevitable.

Good luck, m93samman. (I got it right this time, right?)


Thanks for your response, and yes, you got it right this time.

My opponent continued to drop my argument; he quotes his rules from round 1, which I DO accept, but I'm using debate mechanics. I will try my best to explain.

We have two propositions- infinite time, and finite time. For the sake of argument, it will be A to represent finite time, and ~A to represent infinite time (~ is a boolean symbol representing "not"). My opponent is trying to prove that A, my advocacy, is impossible. My burden is to prove that A is possible. In the real world, we find that A and ~A are mutually exclusive, for the reason that there is some entity X (time) that is defined by characteristic A (finiteness or infiniteness). If X is neither A nor ~A, then X does not exist, in which case time does not exist. So, if my opponent proves impossible my position of A and I prove the position ~A impossible, the default would be to vote a tie, for we each have burdens- I have the burden of proof, and my opponent has the burden of clash. If my opponent does not provide clash to all of the burden I fulfill, I win. In this case, he has yet to clash with my claims against ~A; therefore, A must be true of ~A has been negated.

In order for this debate to holistically make sense, we must better understand the function of time in the universe (excluding God). Space is three-dimensional; time is the fourth dimension (now, space-time) [1], and what makes action take place in three-dimensional space. That being said, time is dependent upon the existence of the universe, excluding God. Otherwise, time is nothing. My opponent may refer to time as any action that ever takes place, but if that were the case then time would be independent of the universe, and we wouldn't have what is known as space-time; the network we all live in [2].

For this reason- our modern understanding of the universe- God is precluded when we refer to time, as well as the universe. Even from basic semantics, God being the *transcendent* creator of the universe, my opponent should agree that God exists outside of the universe, where there is time. I hope this take cares of my opponent's abusive semantics, which have really detracted from the meaning of this debate.

As for the logically vs. illogically possible argument, we look to the actor- an omnipotent being that created the laws of logic, nature, etc. Since my opponent has in fact conceded the existence of God, we see that it is not problematic for God to violate the laws of logic- for once He violates them, it is no longer a violation because it is His laws. Just like if the mayor of a town decided to, for example, J-walk, he is technically prosecutable. But he decided to uplift that law; therefore it is no longer a violation. The same applies to the God scenario, which is why Con wins this issue as well.

The "effect" of beginning time is misunderstood by my opponent. Here's the issue- you can't "affect" something that doesn't exist yet. So, affecting time would necessarily result in a change of a certain property of time. The established facts in the above paragraphs clarifies the necessary distinctions between affecting time and the beginning of time.

To address my opponent's last paragraph, we look to more established definitions of universe (which, for the sake of argument, if we have conflicting definitions, both points become moot in which case you would default Con).

the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
the whole world, esp. with reference to humanity: a truth known throughout the universe.
a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe.
Also called universe of discourse. Logic . the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion.
Also called universal set . Mathematics . the set of all elements under discussion for a given problem.
Statistics . the entire population under study.

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.
2. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

Clearly, the most commonly utilized and UNIVERSALLY recognized conceptual understanding of the universe does not align with what my opponent claims it does.

With that, I hope we've gotten on the same page, and look forward to the final round.





Debate Round No. 4


Thank you, m93samman, for this debate.

My opponent gives a rather lengthy explanation as to why he would win in the case that we prove our respective opponent's stances to be impossible. However, this is all made irrelevant by another rule, which describes exactly what should occur given this situation:

"[I]f both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO."

Whatever burdens of proof or clash my opponent claimed we would have have been redefined by the rules of this debate. If anybody believes that this rule is unfair, read the following rule:

"In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins."
Given the difficulty of proving something to be logically impossible, CON would seem to have the advantage. Add that I didn't even choose the side that I was attacking, and I would have to be prepared to prove either finite time or infinite time to be logically impossible.

He next attempts to redefine time as the fourth dimension of space-time. This contradicts the definition that I established in Round 2, and went unchallenged through Rounds 2 and 3, only in the fact that it constrains time to the universe (although this assumes God not to be part of the universe, even though my opponent's source, Wikipedia, considers the universe to be "the totality of everything in existence" [3:1]). However, we are not debating about time restricted to the universe, excluding God; we are arguing about the entire system of sequential relations. Any event that has any sequential relation to any other (...God decided to expand the universee ==> God created the rest of the universe ==> God started the Big Bang ==> ... ==> mongeese and m93samman debate over time ==> ...) is a part of time.

My opponent adds that if time were independent of the universe, then space-time wouldn't exist. Space-time would still exist; the portion of time that occurs within the universe, be it finite or infinite, would still contribute to this space-time concept, just as much as a river flows through a canyon along its vast route, creating a geographic system reliant on both the canyon and the river.

He then tries to use God's transcendency as an explanation, but I am attacking with the full force of logic itself; for God to truly be outside of my arguments, He must defy logic, losing my opponent the debate. My opponent then accuses me of using semantics, but it is he who has attempted to introduce a new definition that conflicts with a definition established for two whole rounds without challenge.

He goes on that God cannot be illogical because he created the laws of logic. Logic, however, is a study of argument [1], concieved of and built upon by humans, not God. If God were to suddenly break the law of the excluded middle [2], becoming, say, neither tired nor not tired, He has still acted contrary to the human conception of logic. He would undeniably have broken the law of the excluded middle, hence no longer acting logically. Therefore, He would be illogical. As my opponent relies heavily on this "illogicalness" to make finite time possible, finite time may be illogically possible, but not logically possible.

My opponent continues that since God created time, he couldn't affect anything with it. However, time is defined by a sequence of events. It's not something that can simply be created. How does one create sequential relations between events that weren't there before? That's not logically possible. Additionally, assuming that God follows the laws of logic (something that my opponent must assume to be true in order to win the debate), he'd be subject to all of the facts I've outlined in Round 2. He'd be just as unable to shift from inaction to action as anything else, requiring Him to be in constant action, be this action contemplating whether or not to create the cosmos or an actual motion.

If God was ever not doing anything (and I mean anything) before He created anything else, then He would remain for ever in a state of inaction. He would not be able to remove himself from His state of inaction, because He is not doing anything; if He were simply waiting, He would be thinking of when He'd be done waiting, repeatedly checking that He need not wait any longer. This would constitute action. Because there would be no change within God's status, and God's current status would demand that He not do anything, there would never be a change in Him that would induce Him to do anything. Any argument my opponent makes in which God can shift from complete inaction to action would involve some form of action during the period in which God was supposed to be in inaction, be it thinking, contemplating, counting, waiting, whatever. This is essentially my Round 2 argument, but personalized to God.

Nothing else would be able to induce God into action, because nothing else would have existed yet. God, therefore, would never have a change to begin time, because any action like beginning time would have to follow some other action by God (because He couldn't ever have been in inaciton, EVER), and since this action would constitute an event with a sequential relation to the creation of the universe, which has a sequential relationship to everything else, it would be a part of time. It's impossible for God to have begun time, because time must precede all of God's actions, as it must precede any event at all.

Finally, we look to my opponent's argument regarding the definition of "universe." Firstly, I have already used Wikipedia to source my definition [3:1]; Wikipedia also happens to be the source my opponent used to explain the fourth dimension and space-time. Secondly, it really doesn't matter what definition my opponent or anybody else favors, because the word was used by me. My opponent only started using "universe" to actually launch arguments starting in Round 4; every other time, it was a rebuttal to something that I had said. Given that it was my contention, it is only right that I may define the words in it however I please, given that I give my opponent a reasonable chance to respond to the newly clarified contentions, as I have done. What right does my opponent have to define a word in my own sentences. That would be like using a modern definition of "gay" while reading decades-old literature; it would be taking the word out of the intended context. Given that my definition of "universe" is acceptable (see Wikipedia), it only makes sense that I may use it to clarify my own contentions, as my opponent may clarify definitions to clarify his own contentions. (Well, it's too late now, as it's the last round and all.)

Also, my use of "universe" would best fit, from my opponent's list,'s #4:
"the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion."
As God has entered the discussion, God has become part of the universe that I refer to, by either Wikipedia's definition or this definition.

To conclude, if the universe (everything in existence) is ever in a state of inaction, it can never take action to put itself in a state of action, and is therefore stuck in inaction. Therefore, for the universe (everything in existence) to be in a state of action (as it is now), the universe must always be in a state of action. Finite time suggests a start of time, but as long as the universe (everything in existence) was always in a state of action, no one action could ever be considered to start time, as time would be infinite. This applies to God as well as it does to any other system. Therefore, logically, time cannot be finite. I have met my goal as stated in Round 1, winning the debate.

Thank you, m93samman, for this interesting debate on time, and I hope to debate you again in the future. And thank you, voters, for reading.



Though this debate has become rather frustrating, I'll give mongeese the advantage of last word because he won't be able to respond to my arguments. I'll merely use this round to close out the semantics issues.

1) Time.

My opponent treks on in saying that time is any sequential event, therefore the creation of time must mean that time had already existed, etc. Here is the problem: time is only the force for "sequential events" in space. My opponent applies the laws of the known universe (such as physical and natural laws) to a being which is not bound by them. God's transcendence IMPLIES that God is not bound to laws of the universe, and for this reason is not limited by time. God can act outside of time, or within it. As opposed to treating God like a human who invented time, I request that my opponent (in the future) refer to Him as the supernatural being that He is.

If we simply define time as "events" as my opponent did, the pitfall forces us to believe that time is infinite. But I digress; my opponent, through 4 rounds, has STILL not responded to my arguments against infinite time. The law of the excluded middle, that my opponent attempts to use against God, would most certainly work against the Pro advocacy. The issue of time has been abused by my opponent overall, so for the tagline of "time", I urge a Con vote.

2) The Universe.

We look here and zoom out all the way to see the scale of the universe. The universe is measurable, to what we know, as is its age. If God is supposedly a part of the universe, I sure hope my opponent doesn't believe God is 13.75billion +/- .17 billion years old. For far too obvious reasons, my opponent also abused the definition of universe. I urge a Con vote here as well.

In conclusion, there is really nothing left for me to say. I urge a Con vote, because of the semantics that have totally detracted from the debate on my opponent's part, and the unrefuted argumentation that was extended throughout mine. I apologize for not addressing definitions earlier, but I had not anticipated such horrendous tactics from Pro.

Thanks, readers, and happy holidays.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
And now Koopin is, too.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
He'd be one of the excited people, yes.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
This is in reference to Geo, right? lol
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
I always find it strange when the people who are so excited to comment on a debate end up not voting on it.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
How abusive can rules be that require me to prove a concept that my opponent chose impossible in order to win the debate?
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
According to Mongeese's somewhat abusive rules, as neither side managed to prove the other impossible (thanks in large part to the rabbit trails and semantic arguments this debate degenerated into), my vote defaults to Con.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
GEEEEEEEEEZ!! Geo, just shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. Go take calculus, and come back to me later, mmkay? Aight.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
GeoLaureate, learn to maths. (-infinity,infinity) is commonly used to signify all real numbers in existence. An undefined boundry is "defined" as a boundry that does not exist. It is a mathematical term.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
"Limit as x -> infinity of y=x is undefined."

That makes no sense.

"That means infinity. That means no boundary."

Yes... YES... YES! We're getting somewhere now.

"An undefined boundary is undefined."

How very enlightening! You also forgot to mention that an undefined boundary is still a boundary! "Undefined" doesn't mean "null" nor does it mean "non-existent" nor does it mean anything other than "undefined." In talking about infinity, there are **NO** boundaries whether they are "undefined" or not.

"Wrong. Parenthesis-comma-parenthesis implies an interval, excluding the endpoints. That's it."

That's exactly what I said when I stated "It marks numbers inbetween, but doesn't specify a beginning or end." Meaning, it specifies an interval, but doesn't specify the endpoints. However, just because the endpoints aren't specified or defined, doesn't mean there aren't any!!! You can't seem to get this concept through your head! The very notion of interval implies two end points! An interval marks a range of things BETWEEN two endpoints whether they are defined or not!

You can't have an interval without two endpoints, that's just the bottom line. So to say (-infinity, infinity) is just absurd because you can't treat infinity like you would other numbers. It cannot be bound by or presented as an interval. That's like trying to say "a + b = rectangle! But look, you can't add letters to make a shape, therefore the concept of [a] and [b] don't exist!" No, see that's not how it works. If you're going to argue against infinity, you have to apply it properly.

"As for the recording argument, you can't record something infinite."

Explain why.

"You would have to be at the beginning of an infinite amount of time,"

Says who? Please justify this statement. Assuming the possibility of the Universe existing eternally, why is it not possible for an eternal video camera to be on "Record" forever and be able to rewind at will?

"at which you can't be."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04