That's exactly the point Viole.
Since it doesn't happen yet it must have then there was a cause, and since there wasn't any mass/energy by necessity since mass and energy were created then it was an immaterial cause.
You're proving the point you're seeking to reject.
So, the answer to my question is ...?
Do you have evidence of something "beginning to exist" which does not require pre-existing mass energy?
Apart from the universe itself, of course
How many times do you need us to answer the question?
Your personality and Luftwaffle's post are two answers you fled from. Why do you need more from which to run away?
Further, the whole point that the only instances we can cite are the results of immaterial minds calling things into existance since material things are not popping into being out of nothing proves the point.
We've established that from nothing, nothing comes, we've established that from the agency of consciousness things begin to exist, and it's established that the material universe is finite because of entropy and the laws of motion (otherwise you have an infinite regression of past events), and you're establishing that matter and energy don't just pop into being from nothing (which you don't seem to realize is cutting off the branch you're sitting on) therefore matter and energy had to come into existance from an immaterial consciousness.
What you think is a defeater for this argument is actually continuing to lend support to the arguement.
1. Matter and energy don't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing.
2. Anything that doesn't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing came caused out of something.
3. Therefore matter and energy had a cause from something.
You're attempts at including qualified defeaters are logically incoherent and you continue to prove yourself wrong.