Prime mover argument is only talked about it in the small circles that still believe in 5000 year Earth. The argument has serious logical flaws, which I do not care to go into again, but anyone can easily look up. It is based on faulty assumptions, is refutable by example, and to reach the conclusion that a being had to initiate an act over and beyond existence in and of itself requires the contradictory belief that a consciousness could beget existence. But to be conscious is to be conscious of something, so the prime mover argument - if it weren't flawed - results in a fork in the road of two infinitely regressive options.