No wonder that you do not get anywhere in a debate if you do not accept basic definitions of the subjects that you debate. The suggestion is that things that begin to exist need a cause, eternal things by definition do not. To ignore definitions makes you argue from ignorance which is intellectually lacking.
If you would have made an effort to look up the links, which apparently you haven’t you would not assert your unsubstantiated claim. The link about causality should have given you an idea about how cause and effect are interconnected, an understanding you seem to lack. Also the concept of defining the properties of a cause from deductive reasoning seems to be beyond your horizon. Unlike you, most people make up definitions for a reason, e.g. based on the available evidence for example the evidence that the physical universe from all the evidence available appears to have a beginning, thus is in need of a cause. If you claim that this postulated infinite existing cause requires a cause you clearly lack the understanding of the concept of infinite existence. The video link from WLC would have helped, but then you gave that a pass as well.
Thus, ignoring all the evidence presented to you and calling the definition of an eternal creator unsubstantiated and, particularly in the face of the argument that our physical universe can’t be past eternal from the evidence presented, to them make the unreasoned assertion to define the physical reality time transcendent, when it clearly is not, is the pinnacle of childishness. So your demand for me “not to be childish” is quite amusing.
Whilst infinity is a difficult concept for a child, it should be comprehensible to a grown up that tries to partake in intellectual conversation, otherwise one should give that a pass to avoid embarrassment.
If you do not understand that the position of theology is exactly that the metaphysical realm of God is not having the same space time boundaries as the physical universe, e.g. that there is more to our reality than the physical one, you really have a problem here, so in what web of assumptions you are operating is beyond my imagination, but it does not seem to be grounded in reason, let alone fact, thus goodluck with your opinion