Muslim Philosophers were the first to attack the Argument from Originating/Occurrence "burhan al-huduth" from every possible angle.
One approach was to question what it means for a thing to begin to exist?
All definitions had been provided can be reduced to these two:
1- what is preceded by nothingness.
2- what is preceded by other.

The Philosophers had problems with these definitions.
they said: There are 4 divisions of "precedence".

The first, is the precedence by causality i.e an effect is preceded by its cause such as a lightning object preceding the light, because the light of the sun has never been disjoined from the sun, and the motion of a ring is corollary of the motion of a finger not vice versa, and that precedence is not by time.

The second, is the precedence by Time such as the precedence of Moses over Jesus and of Aristotle over Kant.

The third is the precedence by nobility such as the precedence of Jesus over his disciples, of a knowing man over an ignorant, and of an intellectual over an atheist and so on.

the fourth is the precedence by order, like in theaters, with respect to a projection screen, Rows that are closer to screen precede those which are not. and with respect to the entrance of the auditorium, rows that are closer to the door precede rows that are closer to the screen.

*The last two divisions aren't that important.
*actually there are 5 divisions but one of them was difficult for me to interpret into English, as i'm not sure that i fully understand it even in arabic

Now, as for the first definition, Philosophers asked the theologians a question; "Which one of these divisions do you mean when you say that Nothingness preceded the existence of the universe?

it's not admissible that you meant the precedence by causality since nothingness can not be a cause for anything, and the effect is co-existent along with the cause, which would imply predicating both existence and non-existence upon the universe and that's impossible.

it's not admissible that you meant the precedence by Time, for we have shown that such a thing can not be affirmed unless there is already TIME, and that time either it's accidental or eternal, the former is false due to an infinite regress. therefore, it's the latter i.e. eternal, but TIME is a consequential accident of motion which is a consequential accident of bodies and that implies the eternity of time,motion and bodies but that is not what you have sought."

as for the second definition, Philosophers said: "if that "Other" preceded the universe by causality, then you are stating our doctrine, the universe would be eternal since the Perfect cause necessitates its effect. but you do not approve of that doctrine.

and the precedence by time would lead to the same result as we've demonstrated."