It sounds like the ol' human cognitive trap of trying to explain an infinite reality using a finite brain, which is the very essence of the Big Bang Theory, I posit. I suggest that we simply cannot get there from here and that, while not completely abandoning the effort, we not pretend otherwise.

So, does anyone have any creative perspectives that don't involve illogical random subject-verb-object constructions?

It is my understanding that in a closed universe that the Big Bang is preceded by the Big Implosion

The present moment IS the starting point. Since time is just a measurement and nothing may be measured sooner then NOW, now becomes the starting point for all measurements of time. The present moment does not arrive because it is already here and it does not leave because it is still now, whenever I ask what time it is. Since it is NOW everywhere in the universe, there is nowhere one may go where it isn’t now. The universe and everything in it, has always been here and now, in various different forms, with the Big Bang being just a local event in an infinite universe. Saying all this, doesn’t make it true of course, it’s just a point of view I happen to like at the present moment.

A starting point in time is not really an issue. What matters is that something must necessarily exist if something contingent is to exist; an oak tree is contingent because cells, molecules and atoms must exist if the oak tree is to exist. The question here is 'What is necessary existence?'

The necessary existence - that precedes all other things - is existence itself. It is not something that has the property 'existence'. It is existence itself because existence is not a property. Existence precedes all other contingent things and they inherit their existence from the necessary existence that is.

Existence precedes all other contingent things and they inherit their existence from the necessary existence that is. — EnPassant

How do you know it’s necessary? Also I like your name.

Since time is just a measurement and nothing may be measured sooner then NOW, now becomes the starting point for all measurements of time. — Present awareness

Sure.

Since it is NOW everywhere in the universe, there is nowhere one may go where it isn’t now. — Present awareness

Agreed.

But that is different from the OP’s question. OP is asking when the “starting point of time” is. He is not asking whether or not we can measure time at a moment other than now or if we can be at a moment other than now. He’s asking how far back do our measurements go.

The present moment IS the starting point. — Present awareness

Why not the ending point? Or the only real moment?

I think the answer to this depends on what type of topic you have in mind. If you're talking about the starting point of the universe, then that's one question. Some argue that it simply was the beginning of the universe, to ask what came before it is a bit like asking what's south of the south pole while you're standing on it. Others speak of cyclical universe in which the universe eventually contracts and it all starts over again. Yet other speak of multiverses. Who knows?

If you have in mind the starting point of an event, say, WWII or something, then yes, there will always be an arbitrary stipulation of some kind. To say that such an event caused or began WWII, for example, you'd have to be able to provide some reasonable causal explanation between the event you have in mind, and the start of the war. But as you say, it suffers from infinite regress and speaking about casual relations in international affairs is very difficult, given how many people are involved.

Maybe this is a cheap way out, but I'd say that whatever fits your intuitions best is the most reliable "starting point" for "normal life" questions. For example you see someone slip and break a bone. What caused that? Well you happened to catch someone throwing a wet towel at the person. If someone asks what caused him to break his bone, your intuition would be to say that the person who throw the towel was the starting point of the events that lead to a person breaking a bone.

You will always be able to complicate the situation more by asking "what starting point led the person who throw the towel want to throw it?" And then you'll get stuck. So I think our intuition here is the safest bet in manifest reality. Science is a different matter.

The starting point is now and one may measure as far back or forward as one wants, the reason it is referred to as infinity.

There is no ending point in time. No matter how far back one goes in time, one may always go back another year. Time is not finite it is infinite.

Thanks. An existence that is not contingent on a previous state is necessary in the sense that there is nothing to stop it from existing. It simply is.

I wouldn’t call “there is nothing to stop it” “necessary”. I’d just say “there is nothing to stop it”. “Necessary” usually means that there is a reason it must happen. Which is different from “there is no reason it wouldn’t happen”.

"Maybe this is a cheap way out, but I'd say that whatever fits your intuitions best is the most reliable "starting point" for "normal life" questions." I agree. It seems we don't have enough information to go deeper in the rabbit hole.

I wouldn’t call “there is nothing to stop it” “necessary”. I’d just say “there is nothing to stop it”. “Necessary” usually means that there is a reason it must happen. Which is different from “there is no reason it wouldn’t happen”. — khaled

Alternatively you could say it necessarily exists because it exists. It could not have been otherwise because it is what it is and there is nothing else preceding it.

The first event or moment or cause in a chain of events, moments or causes?

Possibility is a starting point, but to be honest I don’t think we can avoid the starting point being a binary or contradiction of some kind. So possibility/impossibility.

Starting point: Cogito ergo sum

Another starting point: T = There are no truths. T can't be true because then it's, self-contradictory. T has to be false ergo, S = There are truths

Bcause of perspective, a truth can be false.

Bcause of perspective, a truth can be false. — Don Wade

You have a point but the two arguments that I brought to your attention are not restricted to a single perspective; they're true from all angles..

How do you determine what something is from all angles?

When it works or is valid under any and all contexts.

I have a problem trying to understand "all" of anything.

Presenting my own philosophy I have experienced this problem; there were two natural starting points. Discovery of the theory of evolution, or the evolutionary history of humankind. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The former assumes scientific method, while the later allows us to understand the long struggle from ignorance into knowledge over time. The latter assumes evolution, without the advantage of theoretical explanation. I do not seek to explain the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life on earth. I don't know if God exists, or does not. Seeking out some absolute, from which to look back at humankind and tell us what truth is, seems obviously flawed - in that its contrary to knowledge that begins at the fingertips and is built from the bottom up, not the unknowable top down!