quote:
I think what he means is the idea that there was eternally existing matter in some form without need of a Creator.
Why does eternally existing matter make more sense than an uncaused first cause? (One of the usual explanations for God)
Well that's something of a strawman. Does "eternal" mean the same as "all time" if time is finite ? And why refer to "matter" when anyone who has a basic understanding of cosmology would know that matter is a form of energy - and that other forms preceded it.
Now "mass/energy has existed for all (finite) time" would be more reasonable. And it is consistent with conservation of energy. So it is not obvious that we need a first cause at all.
But we have another problem with this argument - an excluded middle. Why can we not have a first cause that is NOT God ? It is a big step to go from there being some sort of first cause to the idea that it is God - so the most important part of the argument is simply ignored, left out of the false dichotomy.