Philoponus's traversal argument and the beginning of time

Abstract

Richard Sorabji has argued that John Philoponus’ arguments for the claim that time must have had a beginning are good ad hominem arguments against Aristotle. However, he claims that they do not show that time must have had a beginning. I argue that one of those arguments, the traversal argument, is unaffected by Sorabji’s major criticisms. Sorabji fails to take account of the fact that the argument is not merely based on logical considerations, but on a theory of time.