I have heard the argument that time must have a beginning (I know that discussion about time tends to become vague, because we have no definite definition of time, and that terms can overlap, (especially when talking about infinity) but I hope I make myself clear): "Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back. Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment. As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred, and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning." (This is not quoted from anywhere) I believe this argument is flawed, because there exist no point on the time line such that there is a period of infinite length between that and this moment. Hence the second sentence of the argument uses a period of time that measures the time between this moment, and a moment that does not exist. And that is my reason why I believe the argument is wrong. However, I am not saying I am absolutely sure about the error I have found. I could likely be wrong, but I wish to hear your comments about this, and hopefully your opinions on the matter.