Atheism is forced to claim that either (1) time and the universe have been around for an infinite duration, or that (2) they sprang from nothing. Atheism is forced to claim one of these options because the only other option is that something created time and the universe. If atheists believed that, they would no longer be atheists.
However, both atheistic contentions are logically impossible. Understand, I am not saying they are unlikely, nor am I saying they require faith to accept, nor am I saying they are difficult to comprehend. I am saying they are logically impossible.
If one accepts either atheistic explanation for beginnings, it would be equivalent to accepting the existence of square circles, positive negatives, or hyperintelligent shades of the color blue. There is nothing wrong with such concepts in science fiction (the keyword there is "fiction"), but if they existed in reality, then knowledge itself of any kind would be absolutely impossible.
The definition of infinite is "without end". The definition of finite is "not infinite". Thus, by definition, anything with an end is finite. Past time has ended. Thus, past time is finite. This demonstrates logically and conclusively that past time is not infinite, and therefore Atheist Answer Number One is logically ruled out. To continue to claim that past time is infinite is to claim that it is possible to get to the end of infinity. But, simply by definition, infinites have no end.
Claiming that past time is infinite is an example of a violation of the logical law of non contradiction, which states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. By claiming that past time is infinite, atheists are claiming both that it (a) has an end, and that it (b) does not have an end, at the same time and in the same relationship. This is not simply difficult to understand, it is logically impossible.
The other answer atheists give is that everything came from nothing, which is the substance of the question asked above.
If nothing created everything, then nothing is a creator. However, a creator is something (namely, it is a creator), it is not nothing. Thus, we see that Atheist Answer Number Two is just as logically impossible as Atheist Answer Number One, and for the exact same reason: it violates the logical law of non contradiction. To claim that nothing created everything is to claim that nothing is not nothing. This is logically impossible.
If atheism were true, either NOTHING would be equivalent to NOT NOTHING, or INFINITY would be equivalent to NOT INFINITY. This would mean that things can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. Which, ultimately, would make all scientific inquiry meaningless and knowledge itself absolutely impossible.
The only conclusion that can logically be reached regarding this is that consistent atheism demands that science is impossible, knowledge is also impossible, and logic is nonexistent.