If there was a 1st moment in time.

[paulpablo]

If there is a first moment in time,  it didn't always exist.

Although time wise, and only time wise, nothing precede the first moment in time.  First moment in time is like all other moments, coming to existence and that shifting to another moment in time.

Just like all other moments in time didn't always exist, the same is true of the first moment of time.

The only question remains, what ontologically preceded time. Preceded not as in time wise, but ontological precedence. 

I would say there is 3 options:

Nothing.
Something without will.
Something with will.

As for nothing, I don't think first moment in time just appearing out of nothing makes sense.

Something without will, is problematic, in that it is timeless. As it timeless, time wasn't part of it's reality, and as such it cannot undergo change.  Whatever that reality is, it cannot add to what's there, because ontologically is without time, without motion. Physical things without time cannot cause things to come to exist.

Something with will is the best reasonable conclusion, if there was a first moment in time, that caused the 1st moment in time.

Now when I say something with will, if we imagine will to be separate part of it's essence or part of it's essence, that has it's problems, but it's just semantics, and it means this thing that cause it, is will, because there is no divisions in God.

That is it is  a will that causes the first moment in time to come to be. And God is a will.  The best will at that.

But for the sake of argument, you can say the being has will or is will, doesn't matter.

It seems that there's more problems in your reasoning than the thing you're arguing against.

The problem with the notion you're arguing against is 

1) We don't know of something physical outside of time either moving or creating anything.

The problem with the notion you're arguing is 

1)We don't know of anything that has a will that's separate from anything physical, everything we're aware of that has communicated to us in some way that it has a will is also a living thing with a brain.

2)Physical beings with a will require time in order to move or create things.

3) IF there were such a thing as a being with no physical properties that is just a will then we have never seen anyone exercise their will outside of time either.

It seems to me that it's swapping a problem involving time and space for a problem that not just involves time and space but also biology and psychology.

A disclaimer to this is that I have no expertise in physics, so this is basically an idiot argument vs idiot argument.