new visitor with a logic question

I am new to the site, and much like a good book, I have been unable to stop reading here since I started.. anyway, I found this site from a link on one of the threads here... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7273/GodExists.htmlI've read through this, and I know that some of you more capable minds can help me with this. Postulate 4 and 5 really bother me,Quote"4. History has its end in the present. (The future is not history.) So if the past was of infinite duration, an infinity came to its end. But this is a self-contradiction.".Basically he's saying that an infinity as a concept is a paradox. He has a diagram of a timeline in his expansion of premise 4 that shows a timeline with 0 at present and infinity in the past and he says if we have an infinite past we can never reach the present. What are the fallacies of this argument, there is obviously at least one.To me it seems as though he is attempting to grasp the concept of infinity, which is in fact uncomprehendable. anyway, just looking for some input to help me understand why this is wrong.

crash.. I don't understadn this statement"if the universe was infinitely large or old, it would be so large that there would be a star at some distance at every point in the night sky, and the night sky would be blindingly bright as an infinite number stars shone infinite light onto the earth."If the universe were infinite, does that necessarily mean that it must be filled with mass in the form of stars, and by the same token if the universe is infinite, we would never see most of the stars or matter, or whatever is out there because it would take an infinite amount of time for the light to reach us. That is a parallel to premise 4 of the argument in my first post. I'm playing devils advocate because I want someone to explain why this doesn't hold water.