So apparently you're accepting my definition of time, because you're saying that it proves that atheism is false. You can't go that route while rejecting my definition, because then you'd have no argument.

Given time as I have defined it, we can also define what an infinite expanse of time would look like. If you try to define it in terms of numbers, you're going to fail, because infinity is not a number. Take any given situation. We'll call it x. We can ask ourselves, does a situation precede x? The answer is either yes or no. If there is, then we will ask the same question in regards to that situation. And so on and so on. From this, we can extrapolate a dichotomous position. Either we will eventually answer "No, there is no situation before this one," or we will never hit that point. You shouldn't reject this either-or position, because this confirms the very same dichotomy you were attempting to establish on the show. And this is where you and I agree. I think Martin was wrong to call this a false dichotomy.

So this is where things start to get incomprehensible on your part. You are attempting to show that there cannot be an infinite regress because...
if there has been this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature (material and time), then we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.
This makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "we would have happened?" What do you mean "already?" Already from what perspective? You're not really proving anything, here. You're asserting incoherent stuff to prove your point. Now, if you could illustrate to me how an infinite regress is necessarily incoherent, then I would agree.

Seeing as how we are left with two options, either an infinite regression of past events, or some point in time in which there is no situation which precedes it, you're arguing against the former, so I will take it you accept the latter. You've still got some problems to reconcile. Namely, if you believe that God is the prime mover, then it is necessarily true that he has acted without cause or reason. In other words, whatever you think the first action was, it just happened, and there is no explanation possible or necessary. Given that, upon what grounds can you rule out what it can and cannot be? How can you say that it's not possible for a compressed point of energy to have rapidly expanded with no cause whatsoever? And if you think it's a problem, I can just as easily turn the problem back around on you. What do you think God's first action was? Deciding to create the universe? If it's a problem for a universe to "just happen" then it's also a problem for your god's actions to "just happen."

Now you tried to refrain from painting yourself into this corner by stating...
the uncreated Creator exists outside of time
I have heard this claim more times than I can count. Lately, I've taken to ask a very simple question in regards to such a claim. The question is not the slightest bit unfair, and yet, I have never heard anyone even begin to answer it. So Pature, I wish you luck:

Could you please define "outside of time?"