quote:
You're talking about the first moment in time, so shouldn't the reason why no cause is needed be that there was no prior time for a cause to operate?
The premise of a 'beginning' is more aligned with time than matter. The matter represents a secondary action in time.
Analogy. The first car out of the factory was a blue pontiac. Here, 'first' represents time, more than the car; the latter car is subsequential.
It raises the question whether time is an abstract premise or a definitive phenomenon which does not require any action to make it real. This raises the question, is 40 weeks the measure of a human pregnancy - or is the pregnancy subject to the 40 week time factor? Here, if we say a host of other factors determine the pregnancy, such as copulation, one can also say that cause could not activate a pregnancy if there was no time. We end up in a circular arguement - proof it is the wrong path.
IMHO, both time and matter, based on a finite universe, is irrefutably the result of an external, precedent factor, and I know of no alternative to this premise.