And, of course, whatever is wrong with infinite regress? It renders many of the theistic assumptions of telology, first cause and such a non-issue. The universe as infinitely regressive along with incidental consequence are all that's needed. And, if you want a teleology that negates theism, I have an answer for that as well.
OMS...Ontological Metaphysical Supernature...not to be confused with the supernatural. With OMS attributes being the unintended driver of process refinement, whose mechanism is evolution in all of its various stages. Thus we have a third option from which to choose whose explanatory power supercedes both naturalism and supernaturalism whilst providing a foundational gathering of all relevant empirical theoretics across all scientific disciplines.
In my resolution the universe exists as an incidental consequence of OMS existence. The universe ever changes in a direction of emergent complexity driven by polar opposition to OMS attributes. Contra-distinction. I can use the example of a shadow as being analogous to the existence of the universe, relative to OMS existence. Shadows, BTW, are faster than light. I also use the fact of the moons proximity to the earth as the cause of our oceans tides analogous to the way OMS attributes drive the process refinement we observe as the universe evolving towards more and more complexity and sophistication in its natural technology. Infinite regress, (or an eternal universe without beginning) is supported theoretically by the mechanism of dynamic equilibrium that thwarts the effects of entropic equilibrium. Philosophically I can show the dualistic nature of reality as polar opposites, such as light and darkness, absolutes and relatives, objectives and subjectives, thus when I speak of contra-distinction in reference to OMS attributes and the universe's propensity to evolve complexity, I am not begging the question or special pleading, since I have both precedence and theoretic/philosophical support for this phenomenon. Hence the universe unfolds, (which I call process refinement, seeing as reality is a conglomeration of processes), in polar opposition to OMS attributes. The only attribute they share being eternal existence, including infinite regress. The universe exists in a state of flux. OMS exists in a stasis. All existent things within the universe are temporal...OMS is eternal. The universe tends towards complexity...OMS remains as simple as a quantum fluctuation. OMS is non-sentient...thus pushing the universe to evolve a sentient property. OMS is unchangeable...the universe is ever changing. OMS is the foundation around which the universe revolves in dynamic equilibrium. OMS is empirically verifiable once our artificial technology complexifies enough to locate the actual axis of the universe. And this is only the tip of the iceberg of how my resolution actually explains and answers all these alleged "hard" questions, both scientific, philosophical and metaphysical.
Man invented gods as a response to his awareness of being lost in a world/universe whose vastness and complexity he would have otherwise been unable to cope with. We cannot blame our ancestors for this, they made what to them appeared to be the most intuitively satisfying leap they could devise...and did a darn good job of it. Were it not for their resourcefulness and creativity we would not be here today to discuss these issues. But we already have enough evidence to fathom their mistake was to assume that whatever was responsible for all this majestic and frightening complexity had to be even more majestic, frightening and complex still. Now we know that complexity can naturally emerge from very simple combinations over time...but not without a driver...polar opposition to OMS. Otherwise the universe may have revolved around simplicity for all of eternity, never progressing towards anything capable of asking these types of questions.
All we need is a foundation. Histories, which is what cosmologies have been about since their inception, are a waste of time. We need to refocus our energies and efforts towards ascertaining where we are in the universe, not just where we are in this galaxy. We need to realize the universe is vast...much more vast than our current levels of math can compute...which is why most of the models eventuate in infinities...that our look back time of some 13 billion years is not the age of the universe but the distance to its horizon, beyond which we cannot see until we amplify our artificial technology to enhance our natural technological systems of sensory perception. That what we're mistakenly calling a big bang was nothing more than a local bang in this quandrant to compensate for entropic conditions...the mechanism of dynamic equilibrium.
There's more...much more...but that's all I've got to say for now.