An Argument Against The Cosmological Argument

To be sincere, I have done very little study on the Cosmological Argument. Thus, I am quite unqualified to refute, in depth, this argument. However, I have given it a few moment’s thought, and I have decided that it seems erroneous to assume the possible of an uncaused cause.
Below, you will see the argument that I feel refutes the cosmological argument.

1. If an uncaused cause is the result of itself, then nothing else could have existed to cause its existence. (premise)
2. If there was nothing in existence, then it is impossible to have the occurrence of a cause.(Premise)
3. An uncaused cause is a cause. (premise)
4. Therefore, an uncaused cause cannot exist. 1-3

It would seem possible that, despite my limited metaphysical knowledge, that if there exist nothing (nothing meaning: no time, energy, or space), then there are no possible causes to bring about an effect. This is supported by the fact that if God is an uncaused cause, as the cosmological argument proves, then God caused himself out of nothing. I say nothing because that is exactly what had to have happened. You see an uncaused cause has to be free of all possible actions of other causes, which includes time, space, and energy. Therefore, with out the existence of any of the previous how is it possible that an uncaused could have caused it self?