Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[Alex K]

Wasn't "effect needs cause" a premise? If not then what is your argument exactly. It's confusingly written because there are several paragraphs and I don't understand how they relate

That was one part of the argument. But the conclusion doesn't rely on it. Because there is two parts to initial part of the argument. One then talks about effect and cause. The other part talks about time and it's limited nature.  Then the conclusions follow from there. (ie. the first point of time came into being, ie time came into being).

So you are saying effects don't require a cause?

Can you rewrite your argument such that it doesn't contain things it doesn't actually rely on? That makes it unnecessarily opaque.

Yes, effects don't always require a cause.