You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but didn't provide any evidence.

Worse, even if I grant you all that you mentioned as evidence, and that evidence is sufficient to get to a god.

Nothing you presented is sufficient to get to your particular deity.

This is yet another instance where what you've presented can, at best, only get you so far before you have to just believe that you're right, but the arrogantly act as though your belief isn't simply a brief at all, but an established fact.

And that's when you're granted a bunch of caveats out of sheer generosity, but cannot substantiate.

Providing the Kalam presup nonsense about something that "must be timeless.....etc" only highlights the argument from ignorance fallacy, because it relies on acceptance of the assertion with absolutely zero evidence to support the assertion.

In other words: once again, the facts don't actually support the conclusion, and you still have to rely on faith, which is not at all reliable.