Interestingly you are referring to the notion of God.

''a universe that has existed for ever and I am caused by something which is caused by something ... You don't need a first cause of everything you just need each thing to have a cause and it does. ''

Indeed it would be sufficient if everything had a cause, but how are you going to explain that in the light of some sequence? If Bob is present, then Mike is present and if Mike is present then Kim is present - and if Kim is present then Bob is present. Didn't someone had to start being present or have they been present forever? For Bob to be present Kim has to be present, but Kim's presence depends on Mike's presence which in turn depends on Bob's presence - so Kim won't be present if Bob isn't present. But Bob won't be present if Kim isn't present. Ultimately, neither of them can be present (given there is a sequence).

If something is caused this implies that it has a beginning. You could purport something which doesn't have a beginning that could cause all the rest, but isn't this exactly what theism is saying? The deficiency of your hypothesis replacing God by the universe(matter), is that it's hard to explain how matter has caused another universe. One objection could be that WE don't observe any universes being caused by the same matter. Of course, this objection assumes that the matter which caused our universe, is somewhat equal to the matter we observe. But the burden of proof is on you, what makes you think this is a plausible option? Do mind the difference between plausibility and possibility.

Notice: finite temporality entails contingency only if there must be a moment in time prior to the first moment in time, which is absurd

Wrong. Your error, which you keep repeating, is due to the fact that you mistakenly think that cause and effect can only take place in linear fashion, i.e., in time. However, its clear that cause and effect can be simultaneous, e.g., the a dinner table supporting a plate.

You misunderstand the meaning of the word eternal or eternity. It simply means without beginning or end. This can be used in more than one way. The first way (the way you're thinking of it) is infinite time. A world that is infinite with respect to time would be eternal. The second way is timeless. A timeless world or being also has no beginning or end. The latter meaning is the one typically used by theists in reference to God. You can find these meanings in any dictionary.

Of course motion is relative. It was relative for Newton as well. And your point is what, again? ....Oh, that's right! Relative motion is not real motion, because only absolute motion is real motion.

But this just begs the question.

Yawn.

You stipulate the only real change is absolute change. But this is groundless."-No, modern physics stipulates that an object with constant velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame is also at rest in one inertial reference frame. So the question of whether such an object is "moving"
or "at rest" is meaningless, except relative to some other object."

--Read what I just said. For the last time, I don't dispute any of this. What I dispute is your contention that absolute motion is required to count as real change. Again, "absolute" is not synonymous with "real," and "relative" is not synonymous with "unreal." You need a demonstration of your contention, not a groundless stipulation.

"The argument in no way requires that the universe be one big essentially ordered series."

--Yes it does, otherwise there would be a link in the chain where one cause acted on another without being concurrently caused, and so the regress could proceed to infinity. But a premise in the argument from motion says this is impossible. These situations cannot both be true.

"Until the late 1800's everyone thought that there was such a thing as absolute motion and absolute rest."

--I am not talking about Aristotle's view of absolution motion. I am talking about Aristotle including the category of "relation" in his categories of things that really change whether it applies to motion or not. For instance, if A is taller than B, and you cut A half the length of B, A is now shorter than B. "Taller than" and "shorter than," though relations between objects, are relations that really change.

"It is precisely the unintelligibility and moral ugliness of the Judeo-Christian God that I find repulsive."
I would like to hear what it was in your life which prompted your repulsion to the JCG. I am genuinely interested, its not about an argument, or persuading you of something, or any of that rot.

How much reading (and reflecting and puzzling) one has to do in order to understand anything is: one lifetime or more.
I had a philosophy instructor years ago who used to say "there are four questions you have to ask about any philosopher: What did (s)he, what did he mean, why did he say it, and was he right. We wont get to the last question."

"I understand the concept of motion fine. Our disagreement is whether change of relative position constitutes real change. You stipulate the only real change is absolute change. But this is groundless."
No, modern physics stipulates that an object with constant velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame is also at rest in one inertial reference frame. So the question of whether such an object is "moving" or "at rest" is meaningless, except relative to some other object.

"Further, it seems odd for you to refer me to Aristotle when I know for a fact that Aristotle thought change of position relative to objects was real change. Whether he thought change of position was absolute or relative, it makes no difference. The fact is that "Position/location" was included in his categories of being."
Until the late 1800's everyone thought that there was such a thing as absolute motion and absolute rest. Turns out everyone was wrong, including Aristotle and Newton.

"Also, if you think inertia has no bearing on the argument from motion, you're wrong. The argument requires that the uinverse be an essentially ordered series as a premise from which to deduce the existence of an unmoved mover."
The argument in no way requires that the universe be one big essentially ordered series.

Im not sure what you mean here.

The fact that there is no absolute space means that an object at rest is also moving... depending on what you are using as a relative reference. There is no background in reality against which to measure motion or rest. All objects at rest wrt one inertial reference frame, are also moving wrt innumerably other inertial reference frames. So are they moving, or are they at rest?