Hey, thanks for reading.

I used God quite loosely, without expounding on God's nature. First of all, because I don't know if there is a God, but more importantly I don't know God's nature, or if it makes sense to ask what God's nature is. I think I used Aquinas' definition from the Third Way, which is a self-explanatory idea that would give an ultimate explanation to the cosmos. The type of idea, where we could ask the question "why is there a universe at all" and the answer could be "God". God, by definition, is a self-explanatory idea that is non-contingent; the ultimate height on the causal explanatory chain. However, I do not believe this is a "necessary" being, for the same reason Kant did..that being because you would have to go outside the concept to see whether or not this label would apply to anything. I do not deny the possibility of there being inexplicable brute fact; all I did was elaborate what exactly a "brute fact" is, which, at least for me, is the point where you cannot ask further "why questions", however, still lacks justification.

I used the word agnostic to describe myself, although, if we want to be more clear on what I meant, I could have probably just said metaphysical quietest; that being someone who does not have a positive thesis to set forward and thinks all positive thesis are confused or lack foundations.

Being is notoriously hard to define, although in this post, I simply meant "idea" or "entity".

Nothing is, in my opinion impossible to conceptualize, however, I think the negation of something is a adequate definition.

I used beginning in a few ways. Both temporally and non-temporally. I see no reason to reject the possibility of the lack of a temporal beginingless series of events, however, this beginingless series would simply have to be a brute fact without an ultimate explanation(I think I gave a characterization of what that means to me). Again, I don't see reason to reject either, but I don't see any grounds that justify adopting either the former or the latter.

To define atheist, I probably would have been better saying hard atheist, or strong atheist. Someone who has a positive thesis to advance on whether or not there is an entity that the concept God applies to; the answer being no.

how that the CA is also factually true

I don't think it is factually true if by factually true you mean correctly demonstrating God's existence. As a quietest, I personally don't think it is foundationally supportable, however, it does not, at least for me, have any internal inconsistencies. Same with the Russellian explanation of the universe being a "brute fact". I see no reason why either is preferable, or how one could tell which corresponds to an independent reality, but not being a logical positivist, I will not say either lacks meaning, but rather, all that we can do is remain silent.