Not really. You said: "...
cause and effect does not apply when the universe does not exist and you cannot use it to make claims about the 'origin' of the universe". If true, this would make cosmology obsolete. But this is absurd. You've erroneously conflated causality with the inductive generalisations known as the laws of physics.
The purpose of the previous example was to show that causality isn't limited to the physical realm or tangible objects. If the "creation" of the universe is a result of a logical entailment of some sort, then that would atemporal causation. I don't have to give an example of atemporal cause/effect within a temporal world, but I'm guessing the main contention you have is the lack of "temporal lag" between a cause and its effect; this can be resolved by looking at simultaneous causation. Again, there are differing thoughts on that too. See the philpapers link for contemporary literature on the subject.
But no one is assuming that. You're conflating the principle of causality/reason/explanation with the known laws of physics again.
Nothingness by definition cannot be something; it can have no properties, no attributes, no potential, no anything. Disputing this is about as rational as disputing the claim "Oil is oily". When physicists talk about the possibility of universes "coming from nothing", they redefine nothing to mean some sort of a quantum vacuum that has potential - it is very much "something". Even so, not all physicists agree with the central proposal:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091