Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Longhorn]

That's the point though. We're talking about a 'time' before 'time' existed.

We don't know =/= god

Of course not.

But we don't know, still means we don't know.

Meaning someone who doesn't know and has no evidence or proof of how anything happened, shouldn't call me out on my own theory.

We can all be equals here in the sense that we have no proof and choose to believe the path that makes most sense to us. In that, we are all the same. And that's fine.

It's a weak theory. And it's not exactly yours, only in the sense that you believe in it.

You're jumping to the most improbable explanation that doesn't explain anything....
Except you're not. You already believed that. That's the thing with believers: everything is presupposed.

I'll put it this way: you were already taught the conclusion without going along any line of reasoning. That's what religion does. It doesn't examine the evidence. It trots out a conclusion and then tries to fit evidence to support it.

Kalam is just wrong upon wrong upon more fucking wrong.

I don't know. And I accept that I don't know. We can fantasize all day, but we don't know. But you believe. That's the difference.