Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Tartarus Sauce]

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

How do you know that?

Because it doesn't make sense for an eternal being to need a creator? Sure....according to our universe's logic, but we clearly aren't dealing with that, now are we?

How do you know that a being/entity/force of some sort outside the realm of our universe is not in need of creation? How do you know that a being outside our universe is not subject to any of the same physical laws? Sure, it may no longer be a given, but there is also nothing saying it can't be the case either. We don't know ANYTHING about what is and what is not outside our universe. We don't even know if there IS anything outside our universe.

Your work around the infinite regression problem doesn't solve the main failure of the cosmological argument: its inability to necessitate the need for a creator (which is of course the goal it sets out for to begin with). The infinite regress problem inevitably leads to an invalidation of the "there is no such thing as an uncaused cause" premise. By attempting to avoid special pleading via placing the creator-entity outside our spatial-temporal plane, you have eliminated any means of analyzing its potential attributes. It is now in the realm of epistemological unknowables.

If you want to prove the necessity of something in a given scenario, there must be attributes for you to work with. You must ideally be able to observe it, will most likely rely on logical parsing of the topic, and must at the very least be able to ascribe conceivable attributes that you can justify. None of these can be done if your subject is an epistemological unknowable outside our realm of space-time, for if any such analysis could be thrust upon the entity, it would cease being an epistemological unknowable, a status which is unavoidable for any supposed "thing" located outside our universe. Hence, your very specific claims about what qualities this entity does and does not posses, what forces it can and cannot be subjected to, are both extremely suspicious and incapable of being backed by justified reasoning, and your other claim that such an entity is "understood" by some people COMPLETELY negates the epistemological position you have situated said entity. You have no objective foundational structure or framework to either seek for or to attach supporting evidence to, for that requires the entity to be capable of being subject to some sort of analysis (regardless of the type), which as I have said before, is basically the only quality known to NOT be possessed by epistemological unknowables by definition.

The cosmological argument attempts to accomplish an impossible task. Either the original premises are invalidated, or in an attempt to circumvent this, any means of justifying the necessity of the creator in the equation are removed. It never manages to raise the concept of god/creator outside the realm where all other answers to the question of "where did the universe come from" dwell: that of speculation and possibilities.

This is just one of the many manifestations of the futility of attempting to demonstrate the obligatory existence of any deity through objective means. It inevitably falls into the realm of subjective belief.