Given the "if," that seems like an eminently reasonable assessment to me, dear xzins! Even though one might say that the mere appearance of something out of nothing still gives evidence of some kind of a beginning.... But then, what kind of an entity would it BE? What principles can explain it, if it came out of "nothing?" (Science tries to avoid such problems.)
Yet the assertion that life forms on earth do not have a beginning is so problematical; for it flies in the face of everything we observe in our experience. Namely, that things have causes; the original cause is called the beginning (it may well be "extra-natural" itself in the sense that it does not reside in the domain it establishes — i.e., the physical universe); and that every existent thing we observe has a beginning and also an end. The timescales of particular entities may differ; but we humans do not know of a single observable natural object that didn't have a beginning, and that never ends (WRT living organisms, the latter is called "physical death"). These observations pertain to the observable natural realm.
To me, such observations fall into the category of what is called "common sense." Common sense can be thought of as a sort of "distillation" of human observation, experience, and insight as accumulated over the millennia of human history. In most cases, it seems to me that common sense is highly trustworthy — though the tendency nowadays is to depreciate it in favor of "expert opinion." IMHO, your observation at the top is a fine example of the successful application of "common sense" to "abstract problems."
A brief digression: We live in an age where a re-appreciation of common sense, with a corresponding depreciation of expert opinion, seems to be the sole promising path to move through the extraordinary difficulties we face as a nation today, in a Godly way.... E.O.D. JMHO FWIW....
We need to recall that causes by nature are hidden from direct observation/sensory experience. This does not necessarily make causes in any way "mystical." Indeed, if they manifest observable phenomena, then that seems to pull them into the phenomenal realm, where putatively they can be studied by "science." It just means that natural laws and principles are not directly apprehensible by sense perception. That is not "evidence" that they don't exist. Indeed, to me it is inconceivable that existence can be explained in any way without reference to such non-physical, non-sense-perceptible causal principles.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!
“non-sense-perceptible causal principles”
It certainly is nonsense from a scientific perspective.
There is no wonderland down that particular rabbit hole.
There is nothing of any scientific utility in it.
I am afraid it falls square into the realm of “Interesting if true, but of no use regardless.”
[[Namely, that things have causes;]]
Precisely- for a thing to have a ‘cause’ it MUST have a begginning- everythign that is caused MUST have a beginning- if it is eternal, then nothign could have caused it- it ‘just was is and always shall be’ (ie: is supernatural- violates nature/laws- is above nature and laws.
[[We need to recall that causes by nature are hidden from direct observation/sensory experience. This does not necessarily make causes in any way “mystical. Indeed, if they manifest observable phenomena, then that seems to pull them into the phenomenal realm, where putatively they can be studied by “science.”]]
Bingo- we can and must come to beyond reasonable doubt conclusions based on the evidences, as you say, common sense conclusions that are the most reasonable and most plausible and probable- a conclusion that is more plausible and probable than other explanations that defy common sense and the evidence.