2 questions about Kalam argument
After analyzing Kalam argument, I noticed that the principle of causality is assumed to work outside of time.
They defines atemporality as timeless, changeless state.
Let's suppose the premises "Everything that begins is necessarly caused" is true.
If we climb the scale which is the causal chain, we arrive at a place where we ask "What about the Universe? has it a cause?". But we discovered there weren't a "before" for the Universe, although it has a beginning.
By using some concepts of causality, in which effect follows its cause in time; for the Universe origin,
we would imply a time before Universe, which is (as we've just seen) false (or beyond our understanding, at best).
However, Kalam argument uses another concept of causation, accordingly:
*effect "exists" as long as its cause "exists", without any delay between them both.
For theists, this very absence of delay makes it possible to use this causation concept in atemporal state.
So if this concept works, the timeless God is assumed to have caused the Universe to exist not before Universe's beginning but simultaneously to it, and is
assumed to be thus causeless.
Here is my questions: Is their concept of causation really consistent outside of time?
If it's, then can we use it to show that, in this condition, a cause for the timeless God isn't impossible?