What would you call my new beliefs?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.

You insist on missing the point. God is not 'already defined elsewhere', as you yourself said in an earlier post. The whole Kalam cosmological argument is an attempt to prove what is already assumed, it is manifestly NOT an attempt to find out about the beginning of the universe. If cosmology were equated to a murder investigation, the KCA would be analogous to detectives trying, not to prove who committed the crime, but that John did it.

Boru