Are there any arguments for why something past-eternal must necessarily be future-eternal as well?

1

If we assume that something has always existed in the past, what reason is there to assume that it won't perish in the future?

I pondered on it and I wondered whether the following argument works: because it is assumed to be past-eternal, it would have already perished in its eternal past if it hadn't been future-eternal as well.

user3776022

Posted 2018-08-18T12:36:42.593

Reputation: 399

What reason is there to assume either way? Your argument does not work, it is perfectly coherent that something exists on (-∞,t] or on [t,∞) for any fixed time t. One can give some quasi-probabilistic arguments like: the past-eternal thing can "equiprobably" vanish at any time so it is "infinitely" unlikely this would happen in our (short) lifetime. But this is far from "necessarily" and even here the use of "probabilities" here comes close to the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. – Conifold – 2018-08-19T00:13:23.460

if something has always existed in the past, it is not a compound and it will always exist in the future. If something has not always existed in the past, it is not eternal, is a compound, and cannot by logic always exist in the future. This has been dealt with extensively in Buddhist and Hindu philosophies. – Swami Vishwananda – 2018-08-19T11:32:11.507

Yes, past-eternal, necessarily implies future-eternal! – Guill – 2018-08-22T07:39:51.690

However, since we can't know/prove past-eternal, we can't know/prove future-eternal! – Guill – 2018-09-02T02:45:18.173

No answers