I'm a little skeptical about the Kalam argument in that there must be a cause for everything. My view is that a cause is preferable, but causation can be seen as an emergent phenomena.

The problem I have with a universe without cause is that it strikes me as very unlikely, especially since an infinite past of events must be treated as a aleph-null set. Even if the infinite past of events is not treated as a past that occurred 'at once', it still must be treated as an infinite past of events that happened in infinite time past (I believe this is an argument made by Quentin Smith).

Thus, whether you want to see an infinite chain of events as a set of past events all at once, or as a set of past events over an infinite time past, this aleph-null set is causeless. That's the problem.

It's one thing to say that one event is causeless, and from that one causeless event, cause emerges; it's quite another to say that an aleph-null set of past events are all causeless. That is extremely unlikely.

After all, every position has to state some causeless event/situation/condition/process to the beginning otherwise it sets up an infinite regress (what caused that and so on...) which itself would have to be causeless...

The kalam argument, if I understand it properly, is that everything needs a cause except God, and I don't buy into that premise in a direct manner. Indirectly, I do buy into it since it is unreasonable to say that everything in the universe (past, present, future) is without cause. However, if someone can show another way besides advocating a God that shows how cause can emerge from a causeless first event/situation/condition/process, then I think the kalam argument is nullified.