I find it understandable that humans must have "a start" and not to have one seems beyond comprehension, however I say why not.
We all except almost without question that it is possible for the "seed" of the Universe to appear from nowhere in "nothing" and in that nothing created "space" and without further input of energy or matter or any other thing being added from "outside" , and thereupon to expand at an inconceivably rate which would see its "edges" if it had them travelling at many times the speed of light (if there was anything we could relate the speed to that is and of course there isnt???)...To me, after many years of seeing the wisdom in the theory, when it is put as I have done so above, and it be a fair statement generally, I dont think a Universe without a begining is any stranger than the current view that all there is can fit on the head of a pin at T plus .000000001 secs after "ignition". It is a long time ago so who knows really what happened how it happened (let alone why it happened if it took place that way). I know what they know but I recall steady state was the rock solid view maybe 30 years ago for many scientists... oh the olden days when we were savages? my point is the world was once flat and it took a crack pot to point out the misconception and also why those of high intelligence were fooled by the "view" of their then "observable Universe".
I liked your thoughts to fit it into the big bang plan. You certainly seem to grasp what I am trying to convey. Think about gravity lensing to get the idea quickly.
AND a qualification.. although I am seriously interested in "everything" and perhaps more in "nothing" (and the implications of the difference between nothing and "space") and above all gravity, at my age I dont give my soul to any stand.. things change new things get discovered etc ..but I enjoy a chat
Thanks for your interest and input.
alex