There is no humility in claiming you have to be God to know if God exists. I can't think of anything more arrogant than that.

You're avoiding. To repeat, that which doesn't exist doesn't have energy so it can't cause anything. Why do you avoid this?

With an infinite regress having had an eternity, of course you would have happened already. Notice I didn't just say it, but associated your infinite regress having an 'infinite' time before now, so that is an eternity before now to have happened already. All kinds of problems exist with infinite regress. I am only giving you the first sampling, but for our purposes it is more than enough.

That which does not exist has no energy, so the 1st law of thermodynamics says that which has no energy can't create energy, so your something from nothing theory is dead in the water.

You've had to resort to doubletalk again because you said "something coming from something without a cause". The word "coming from" is a causal phrase. That's like saying, the page was turned without the turning of the page. Nonsense! Satan is the author of confusion.

Indeed, you have said you need to know everything and that you don't need to know everything, which is a contradiction. Which is it? You've conceded for now you don't need to know everything but then went right back to claiming you did need to know everything because you said you can't prove conclusively. Well think about that! You can't prove conclusively unless you know everything, according to you. I really get a sense of your eternity in Hell because at least in your mind, you give God no way to prove Himself to you since you demand you must be God to know if God exists. What an arrogant stance to take. I would not want to be in your shoes locked into your subterranean thinking.

The cause for the universe is not the universe. The cause must be that which the universe is not. The universe is space and time. Therefore, the cause must be timeless and spaceless, logically speaking. Why do you avoid this after it was already said many times?

We don't see anything where in nature the lesser can create the greater. We see likeness can produce likeness, but never does the lesser produce the greater. A bird house can never create a bird. You further the cause because you can't get abiogenesis to work.

I am glad you agree repeatable causation is scientific, but I am not saying they explain God, for we don't need an explanation of the explanation. Rather, they prove God's existence, since nature can't always have existed, so the cause must be timeless and spaceless. This is whom we call God.

Not using inductive logic. You would have to show it rather than assert it.