It seems to me the entire point of "eternal universe" cosmologies is the avoidance of the notion of a real beginning of the universe. And yet the Big Bang clearly indicates such a beginning. The strategy then is to say that this beginning is not unique, that "beginnings" (and "endings") of world systems go on cyclically, forever, in time that itself has no beginning or end. Time is simply posited as being "there" eternally, a sort of matrix in which events can happen. Time itself has no beginning (first cause) nor end.
The funny thing is science fundamentally is devoted to the elucidation of causes of natural phenomena. Why is it acceptable for science to turn a blind eye when it comes to the cause or origin of time itself?
Instead, as you say dearest sister in Christ, they keep moving "the goalpost backwards" along an infinite causal regress that doesn't "bottom out" anywhere. I.e., there is no first cause. But if there is no first cause, then how can anything come to be what it is? Penrose himself tells us that our universe had initial conditions of extremely low entropy. How could that be the result of an infinite random process?
Questions, questions....
Thank you ever so much for your insightful essay/post — and for your kind words of support.
Physical causality is taken as a given in all such theories - but physical causality requires both space and time.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
And Happy Thanksgiving!