But neither of these is evidence of what you claim. I have been through this. Multiple times now. Kalam’s cosmological argument simply determines a sort of prime mover who set everything in motion. But there are a couple problems with this in the first place. For starters, you are reducing based on what’s in this universe certain rules about the universe itself. For example, if you went by the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then you would conclude by your logic that the universe cannot do that either. But that is false. The universe itself, the fabric of space time, can and does expand faster than the speed of light. So there is no actual evidence to conclude that we don’t live in a pattern of infinite causality without a prime mover. There could be an infinite chain of universes ending and starting forever. Just because this isn’t logical WITHIN this universe does not prohibit the possibility that it is true of the universe itself. Or maybe this isn’t true, this is also possible since we have no idea. It could be really almost anything. You even yourself mentioned that a prime mover (I’m not gonna say god because you’re argument really doesn’t argue for a god, just for something that set everything we know in motion) is just as plausible as any other explanation. You are correct about that for the most part. That’s because none of them have evidence. So no one claims to know or “believe” which is true except for religious people. you don’t have evidence, you have the fact that it is just as minute a possibility as every other hypothesis of what came before the universe. This is not evidence for your claim at all, it is wishful thinkng.
I have refuted the ontological argument in another thread I think, in fact I think it was you that claimed it was true. But whatever, I’ll do it again. This argument relies on the idea that we know everything there is to know about our universe. Let me explain:
Thousands of years ago, humanity thought the Earth was flat due to the fact that when you looked down, it looked flat. That was the extent of their knowledge. So by their logic that was based on their assumptions through observation, the Earth is flat. So since the Earth being flat makes logical sense, you would say that it must be true. The only way your argument holds any water as evidence of any form is if we know whether there is a god or not, through scientific inquiry. Because then, all of our knowledge through which we base our logic, will be complete and irrefutably correct. If at that point we know a god exists, then yes he must make logical sense as well. Or if at that point we know he doesn’t exist, then yes he must be logically contradictory and nonsensical. This is true with the Earth being round as well. The Earth being round didn’t make logical sense until it was proven through science. That doesn’t make it any less true. Another example: right now, we can’t logically disprove the multiverse conclusively. It is logically conceivable even if some parts of the hypothesis are unclear. So since it isn’t completely logically nonsensical, are you saying that it definitely exists? No! We can’t know whether it is true/logically backed up conclusively, until we know it is true or not through science.
None of this is evidence of either a god or the Christian god. So you still have a long way to go in order to disprove my assertion that you are hypocritical. Your standard for evidence in day to day life is not consistent with your lack thereof for a god.