In a recent Discussion in this journal, Quentin Smith seeks to advance the debate between theistic and atheistic accounts of a universal big-bang singularity (BBS) by suggesting a novel hypothesis that explains why the Universe began with a singularity. The hypothesis he proposes is a ‘new law of nature’, which he calls ‘the Law of the Simplest Beginning’ (LSB) and which says that ‘the simplest possible thing [SPT] comes into being in the simplest possible way’ (128; Smith's italics). To make his case, Smith argues that a BBS is the simplest possible thing and that it did come into being in the simplest possible way. (He also argues (129) that a BBS, as the SPT, is unique; but, since I shall not be concerned here with that claim, I use an indefinite article to refer to a BBS.) A BBS is the simplest possible thing, Smith avers, because it has no positive, essential properties (apart from being the simplest possible thing): It has no spatial extension (a BBS is a geometrical point), no temporal duration, no mass, and is governed by no laws (apart from LSB) (128-9). Moreover, Smith says, a BBS comes into existence in the simplest possible way because ‘it has no positive relations to any grounds for coming into existence’ (129): ‘The simplest possible way [for the Universe] to come into existence is to come to exist from nothing (from no previously existing material, no material cause), to come to exist by nothing (by no efficient cause) and to come to exist for nothing (for no purpose or final cause)’ (129).