This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Religion / Ancient / Medieval Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Philosophy of religion Ancient philosophy Medieval philosophy

I have a question on the lead. The phrasing "The Eternity of the World is a question..." does not make sense to me. The age of the world? Whether the world is eternal? The meaning of eternity? What are we trying to say? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it means, "concept"? The article appears to be in heavy editing/creation phase.--Milowent (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe philosophers have been debating this for so long because no one knows what the heck it is they're supposed to be talking about? I'm lost. And now someone blocked the creator's account as an alternative account of a blocked user. It all seems so hopeless. Can we at least work in something about indefinite blocks not being forever? Infinity plus one? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the eternity of the world = whether the world has always existed or came into existence. The second sentence is rather clear on this point.  Skomorokh  05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the first sentence? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this article and the talk. It was properly deleted under WP:CSD#G5 by User:Fram as work of a banned editor, but after review of the material, I am willing to stand behind the edits. Also, a review of the history will show edits by others that I deem "substantial" enough to qualify, although Fram may not have felt that way. ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support the above. Paul August ☎ 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be merged with Temporal finitism. As it happens, the discussion started there, so best discussed at Talk:Temporal finitism William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this idea for a couple of reasons. First of all, the two issues are clearly distinct and, therefore, require separate articles. In particular, contemporary analytic philosophers (like William Lane Craig) recognize in their published work that the world may have begun to exist without there being such a beginning for time itself (I can provide references to the academic literature if challenged on this point), hence even if it was known with certainty that the philosophical doctrine of the world's eternity is false it does not necessarily follow that the doctrine of temporal finitism is true. Secondly, the question of the world's eternity figures much more prominently in the academic disciplines of historical theology and philosophy of history, as some of the world's major religions take a stand on this issue, while the question of whether time itself had a beginning figures much more prominently in current scholarly discussions pertaining to the metaphysics of time. Hence, the issues are not handled (or discussed) in quite the same way among scholars. TheNewSaadia (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=af3XzdAvB_cC&pg=PA14 John Philoponus' Criticism of Aristotle's Theory of Aether, Christian Wildberg.

https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/nath31.htm Maritain on Aristotle's arguments.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.1.i.html De Caelo

"The historical Aristotle did argue that the world is eternal and that whatever is eternal is necessary [On Generation and Corruption 338a1–4, Physics 203b 29, Metaphysics 1050b8–15]. See also Physics I, 7, 190b, 3-5. Metaphysics III, 4, 999 b8, Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20. Perhaps sourced from Davidson, Proofs for Eternity, Creation and the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 Warburg ABB 60 Physics 190b2 on the impossibility of generation ex nihilo Peter Damian (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D0yl7Cqsu78C which divides arguments into

• Historical accounts
• Fossils
• Sediment
• Salinity (Halley)
• Cooling rate
• Radioactivity