I don't think I agree with Kant that something doesn't exist unless we can fully encompass it with our minds. Maybe only in phenomenology is that true. I think logic dictates that certain things are true or not. People who hear my argument say "Well we just don't know enough yet." They do not understand the problem because the problem is absolute when understood.

No, there clearly is a now therefore the past is finite which means we came from nothing. Which is far more practical than having an infinite past. Still impossible though.

small. — Metaphysician Undercover

And what does infinitely small mean? It is not there.

I have a friend who is into physics and he claims because you can divide a quantity up for ever that means that any quantity is made up of infinite points.

If we take a block of cheese a foot squared. And we say each infinite point is 1 gram in weight then that means the block of cheese must weigh infinite grams. AS long as each point has a value more than zero you will always get this.

It was definitely not Aristotle and I have considered the others postulated by Noah. I think it probably had an x in there somewhere. Problem is finding the right combination of words to google!

I actually came up with his two causes idea independently and later found he already thought of it.

As for its validity. I have brought up the problem on several sites and no one has debunked it to my satisfaction(indeed the more I present the idea the more convinced I am it is correct). The glitch is in making people understand that you cannot have an infinite past. I just know instinctively that it is illogical but everyone else seems to not see it. And try describing an instinct.

I have found a problem with the notion of an infinite past which the philosopher in question did not cover. If the universe has existed for ever then that means it has crossed an infinite amount of time to get to NOW. But it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time.

What this means is that the universe has no logical genesis and we have to consider it as magical or miraculous and that science will never explain where it came from using the scientific method.

People get very angry when I pose this conundrum, like their very sense of reality is under threat...which it is.

This issue is complicated and not contradictory as some seem to be arguing. Each event needs to be justified or not on its own terms.

I have heard it said that during the big bang matter expanded quicker than the speed of light. How can we decide what is scientifically impossible if science cannot agree on what is impossible.