Cosmologists Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin defend the beginning of the universe in a new paper

The paper by Vilenkin is available here.

The scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe is overwhelming. But not only that, but that NO evidence exists for the eternity of the universe. Therefore, we have two powerful scientific reasons to accept, as the most plausible conclusion, that the universe has a beginning:

1-All the scientific evidence that we have points out to the beginning of the universe

2-No scientitific evidence exists for the eternity of the universe.

Note that the above two reasons satisfy naturalists in any other field in order to arrive to conclusions. For example, naturalists reject near-death experiences because (supposedly) 1)The best evidence from neuroscience and other sciences supports materialism and mind-body (ontological) dependence; and 2)No good evidence for surivalism exists and parapsychological evidence is weak and too controversial. Hence (they conclude) the most reasonable conclusion so far is some version of materialism. (You won't see materialists and naturalists speculating that "Science can change in the future and materialism can be refuted, so we cannot jump to conclusions in favour of materialism." But this kind of speculations about future "changes of science" are provided by naturalists to avoid the current cosmological evidence for the beginning od the universe. This provides more independent evidence for Jime's Iron Law).

If these atheistic charlatans were consistent, then they would have to accept that the universe began to exist on the same grounds with which they reject parapsychology and survival evidence.

For any rational and scientific minded individual, the positive, current and only evidence available supports the proposition "The universe began to exist in a finite past". Period. (And let pass the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past which, if sound, provide independent reasons to this conclusion).

Since the beginning of the universe is precisely what we would expect IF theism were true (because God is supposed to be, at least, the creator of the physical universe), the evidence supports theism over atheism (which, itself, doesn't imply the beginning of the universe; in fact, traditionally, atheists have asserted that the universe is eternal and hence the ultimate necessary reality).

So-called hard-core "scientific atheists" who, as a rule, are clearly affected by Jime's Iron Law, are prepared (when confronted with the evidence for the beginning of the universe) to abandon science in order to keep believing in atheism and deny (o misrepresent) the evidence for the beginning of the universe. This is evidence that their motivation is not scientific, but ideological ("science" is used propagandistically by them as an antorch of atheism, because they wrongly believe that science implies or supports atheism, which is not the case. But when the findings of science are at variance with atheism, or supports theism over atheism, they abandon the evidence and refuge themselves in SPECULATIONS, not grounded on hard evidence, in order to avoid the theistic implication).

If the universe has a beginning, then plausibly it has a cause (because we know by common and scientific experience and philosophical reflection that the causal principle whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause always hold. No exception is known to this principle, and the whole point of science is trying to find causal explanations of facts and phenomena).

Note that "scientific" (unscientific?) atheists reject the causal principle ONLY in the context of debates about the origin of the universe and atheism vs theism. They NEVER appeal to the falsehood of the principle in medicine, biology or chemistry. For example, they NEVER argue that the origin of species "could" be something uncaused from nothing. On the contrary, they dogmatically stick the mutations and natural selection as the only CAUSAL explanation of the origin of the species, or to frauds, confirmatory bias and delusions as the CAUSES of putative psychic phenomena. They never would accept that view that "These psychic phenomena came uncaused from absolutely nothing" (nor that these phenomena have causes at variance with naturalism).

They strongly hold to the causal principle in order to defend materialistic atheism, but they reject the principle when applied to the universe (because they fully know that the CONSISTENT application of that principle would destroy atheism).

For any rational, sane, informed and CONSISTENT person, the causal principle "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not only extremely rational and strongly supported by science and common sense, but (on deep reflection) metaphysically necessary, because the alternative "Something can began to exist from literally nothing" seems to be impossible and unthinkable.

So, the cause of the universe has to be, at least:

1-Immaterial (because it is the creator of whole of the physical reality)

2-Spaceless (because it is the creator of space)

3-Timeless (because it is the creator of time)

4-Eternal (because if this cause in turns began to exist too, it would be temporal, since "beginning to exist" is a change which implies time. But this is impossible, because the cause is timeless and is the creator of time itself)

4-Uncaused (since that, if it is eternal, it didn't begin to exist, hence it does NOT require a cause according to the causal principle "whatever begins to exist has a cause". Note carefully that this principle doesn't say that "everything has a cause", but that "everything which BEGIN to exist has a cause". Eternal things or realities, like God if He exists, don't need to have a cause according to the causal principle).

All the above attributes and properties of the cause of the universe is that we would EXPECT if God exists and is the cause of the universe. (Note that the above has nothing to do wth organized religion; this argument is compatible with God as conceived by monotheistic religions, but doesn't depend on the truth of them. Known religions could be false, and still the above argument would stand on scientific and philosophical grounds).

More egregiously (and as a dramatic confirmation for Jime's Iron Law), some "scientific" atheists appear to accept that the universe has a beginning, and are force (as the last retort) to defend the view that the universe came from NOTHING:

But, as fully expected if Jime's Iron Law is true, by "nothing" they don't understand what every sane and rational person understands by nothing (that is, not anything = no existence), but that they conflate "nothing" with "some fundamental physical something" (e.g. quantum vacuum, law of entroy, law of nature, etc.) which (as any sane individual would understand) is PART of the physical universe (and hence, not an explanation of the universe as a whole). This is, in my opinion, one of the strongest and solid evidences for the veracitiy of Jime's Iron Law.

If Jime's Iron Law is true, then you would fully expect precisely that hard-core atheists would behave and say stupid things like that. They're demostrably stupid and stupid people do and say stupid things. You won't be surprised of atheistic imbecility if you have a good command and understanding of my law.

For reflections by a independent individual (not connected with me) regarding wishful thinking and stupidity of hard-core atheists, see:

For a defense of the beginning of the universe and the implications for the debate of theism and atheist, see these videos by William Lane Craig:

For a more scholarly defense of this argument, see Craig's seminal book "The Kalam Cosmological Argument"