Maybe let me present my own arguments? But you do present your assumption in response to the problem outlined by Darwin and Haldane and others, if you do that, you are obviously presenting your assumption as a conclusion. You are not merely presenting an assumption, from which you derive nothing.
I’ve presented reasons that our reasoning should actually be imperfect, even if it’s derived from a perfect, self-existent reason. Perfect reasoning may well require omniscience, for one! I mentioned other reasons. Now you need to address my responses, and not just repeat your conclusion, as if I said nothing in reply.
But you must show that the foundation I propose is not appropriate, or flawed, or something. For starters, how is what I propose, wish-fulfillment?
But you all are not doing that, is my point! When people say I am only speculating, they are pointing to a source that my source is some need to speculate, such as wish-fulfillment, as you did just now. They are not measuring what I say against reality, my conclusions are actually being dismissed, not examined.