Answer: 1. I doubt all intellectuals use this hypothesis as an 'excuse not to admit to a beginning'.
Answer: 2. If matter always was, then of course it would be nonsensical to even broach the topic of asking how it ever 'came into being'. How do you know matter must of had a beginning?
1. Knowing my own propensity to fool myself, and to not allow myself to see the obvious when it is inconvenient to do so, I can easily see them using it as an excuse, yet not even realize they are doing so. It is, in fact, a little surprising to me how often on this site people of all flavors of belief do that, while claiming pure intellectual integrity. On the other hand, I admit to it, so maybe, as has been suggested more than once, I am projecting.
(Lol, this reminds me of my wife whose logic ran kind of like this: "You admit you don't have a great memory of details, while I say I do, to the point where I remember word for word statements in specific conversations, and even what we were wearing in those conversations years ago. So, guess who is more likely to be right about what I am saying was said? And no, don't ask the kids --yes they were there, but their opinion is irrelevant, and besides, Christian teaching says not to involve them in our arguments.")
2. This sounds like begging the question: "If matter always was, why ask how it came into being?" But, are you positing that matter always was? Of course not! But, as usual, I can't remember to whom I said what, so, let me try a short version of how it cannot have "always been", or at least how it cannot have "always been in and of itself". (If you need me to explain the difference, please ask. I love the subject.)
Mechanical fact (matter, in this discussion) is subject to principles from outside itself. It is not the source of those principles, (though some might claim the principles were co-emergent with matter. But if co-emergent, then matter emerged which means not first cause, because a principle caused the emergence. Even the claim that first cause (i.e. God) caused himself, if self-contradictory for the same reason. Emergent also means not "always was".) First Cause necessarily is self-existent.
Please let me re-state my prior entry... "Long ago, an assertion was made that 'matter' can neither be 'created' nor 'destroyed'."
If matter can never be created, then your response appears illogical. To suggest 'came to exist' does not follow.
But again, I am not making the rogue assertion that all matter always was, (for certain). But I trust we agree, that if matter always was, then the topic of 'creationism' would likely be nothing more than a talking point.
To avoid calling it begging the question, I will just say that the principle, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" refers to already existing matter. It was not meant to reference how or whether matter came to exist. But the question of existence applies to all things in this discussion --even first cause (God, I say), or mechanical fact (i.e. matter, in this discussion).
I'll make this short, which looks to be a repeating cycle. This looks to be a battle of the hypotheticals. Meaning...
(me) If matter always was, then 'creationism', 'first cause', 'omni-anything', 'intent', etc., likely goes kaput.
(you) If a 'first cause' is proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove anything beyond the argument for "generic deism".
Generic Deism falls flat on its face, in its logic. If by 'God', the deist means mere first cause (creation), and no subsequent activity or concern on the part of God, his logical development of the term 'first cause' has gone no further than mere creation, in that for all practical purposes his creator has ceased to exist. He has not looked at the implications. His 'act of creation' is incomplete, apparently [unknowingly] presupposing that his 'God' is subject to 'what is' as far as principles such as time. (I.e. if God is creator of everything, then he is not subject to time, so any moment is as 'now' to God as the moment he began time.) He has no concept of the notion that the existence of all matter (and all other fact) is sustained by God.
This response raises more questions, than provides answers.
On the one hand, you seem to agree with me, that if you should 'find out, believe, or other' that matter always was; you would ditch a 'god belief'.
But then... You state "if I gave up on the notion of God, then it would not be by intellectual honesty, but for expedience sake for the pursuit of ungodliness."
What does this mean exactly? This kind of seems to touch on what I stated at the top of this post... That the topic of 'first cause' may play less of a role in your God belief, than you are stating here?.?.?.?.???
I tried to be specific that I did not agree with you about "find out" that matter always was. I could only conjecture a hypothetical that I "became convinced" (i.e, "I decided"). The science community, let's say, might discover that it 'always was', and I would probably in some sense think they are merely failing to see the permanent nature of God, from which matter 'proceeds' or 'came to be', and thus bears the characteristics of permanence.
To give you some sense of the tentative nature of this 'solid fact' of physics, there is (or at least, has been) a philosophical POV that 'the gods' are the movers of every motion of matter, and nothing is mere naturalism; thus what we think is natural cause-and-effect is the gods watching us, and moving things around in the way we expect (or don't expect, as the case may be) --fooling us. I have not heard that they think the objects we see are not there --but that could easily enough also be faked, I would think. Practically, I don't see how it would be any harder than for them to be actual, or that it would make any difference. This proposition is, of course, impossible to scientifically prove wrong. But it is begging the question.
The notion of pantheism, or that all this IS God, also (barely) has a certain merit, in that all this came from God, and is OF himself. So in that sense, yes, being of him, all this has 'always been'. But in its 'present form', shall we say, he could easily cease to sustain it and it would cease to exist. Such matters are obviously beyond us to understand. We don't even know what existence is, though it stares us in the face.
In a sense, you are right, that the intellectual assent concerning First Cause is not my 'strongest'. My mind could fail me, get sleepy, shall we say, in my old age, yet my beliefs not fail me in the least.
But the intellectual apprehension is of the two the more easily discussed with an unbeliever than the faith.
Furthermore, the intellectual assent is only that --compelling, but altogether wrapped up in worldview and mindset --belief.
Well, here is one of the fundamental issues I see with your argument. You argue for a first cause. This would mean that any 'realm' in which God is/was present within, had to be 'caused' by Him. Thus, if everything outside God had a true beginning, then at some 'point', God ruled over nothing at all, and 'occupied' "absolute nothing" at all? And yes, I'm aware that verbiage gets a little wonky here, as we may be speaking about the mere assertion of 'transcendence'/other....
Yes and no. First Cause, (i.e. God, Omnipotence), only occupies a realm, (I call it God's economy, or manner of operation), by way of our terminology --our understanding. I find it necessary to think of that way, but it is only conceptual, not actual. First Cause is complete in himself.
And since he is complete in himself, the creation of fact (existence) that proceeds (proceeded) from him could even be said to merely be 'God expressing himself'. Yeah, I agree --wonky language-- but reality is that much beyond us.