>>You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but
>didn't
>>provide any evidence.
>>
>
>You understand the facts of the argument. No need to rehash
>the known.

The facts?

"The universe has a beginning."

That was the only fact you presented. The rest was pure, unsubstantiated conjecture.

"And because it has a beginning or a cause it had to be created by someone that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and more powerful than you or I could ever imagine."

^^^^none of this is a fact. It's all conjecture, for which you have no evidence at all.


Your "strong evidence for God" is....

"The fact that the universe exists, you exist, and I exists".

So, you got me. You presented four facts, that amount to we exist, and the universe had a beginning.

The only things you can, with honesty and integrity, point to as a fact, are the "what".

The rest, the "how", is just conjecture and faith.

>Dude World renown cosmologists and Physicists agree with me on
>this matter.

No, you agree with them.

Please show one of these physicists and cosmologists providing evidence for the how, and not merely explaining the what.

As an aside, do you not think there are world renowned cosmologists and physicists that disagree with the notion of fine tuning as evidence for a god?

You're leaning heavily on credentials of others, but not presenting any actual information as a response to the significant flaw I presented in the fine tuning argument.

There's a reason for that.

>And know, I didn't just step into Deism. I'm clearly arguing
>for the Theism position that is based on the belief in an
>active and involved God who created the universe, you and me.

You're conflating your belief and what you're arguing *for*, with the actual argument you presented. The two are quite different, and what you presented gets you only to deism.