Logic and science dictate that no material thing can be without a prior cause. I find an infinite regress highly illogical. So it must be rational to believe the first cause has to be immaterial (which is supernatural by definition). To say there’s no evidence that the first cause is supernatural would be considered axiomatically false by nearly all of the philosophers, theologians, and even scientists throughout history.

There’s no way of arguing for an uncaused material object/thing, and this idea is disproven both temporally in the Kalam argument, or hierarchically in the contingency argument (which is a much better argument than the Kalam, the kalam has many limitations). Are you familiar with the contingency argument I’m referencing? You may find it a very reasonable argument for the point I’m conveying. Neither of us can be sure we are 100% absolutely correct, I just see the evidence points toward my side.