Finally admitting that there is no 'Supreme Being' you can understand why there are good and evil people in the world.

OK I'm stupid, what is an "agnostic theist"?

Evil is caused either by nature or mankind. Kalam, or any religious tenant, doesn't mean anything. Man is inherently evil. We want or need so we take. If it is not given, we take by force. This is not to say that evil can't be overcome by good. It can... But rarely.

If you don't know something to be true, then the default position is to assume it isn't.
You do not KNOW there is not a nun's habit wearing purple invisible intangible giant hedgehog shitting invisible, intangible big macs all over your front room carpet, but I am pretty damn sure you are not agnostic about that.
You do not know that Leonard Nimoy was not the second coming of Christ who instead of saving the world decided to make sci fi movies instead and just never told anyone and refrained from performing miracles becaus they gave him chronic IBS, but I am pretty damn sure you are not agnostic about that either.
What makes the ridiculous claims of Christianity any less bull shit, than any other bull shit claim?
Nothing, so why make a special pleading claim for ir?

I refer to Occam's Razor: * "the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary." Or, in other words, the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct.

The simplest explanation is that potential energy/energy has always existed. We know that energy becomes matter and that matter returns to an energy state. Sometimes that matter becomes life; sometimes life becomes sentient and sometimes it becomes self-aware. But, in the end, everything is energy in some form or another.

Science shows us that no creator being is necessary for the universe to behave as it does. So, if no god/universal consciousness, holding everything in its place, is necessary-- why insert one?

Adding a consciousness to this energy, or making it a god, adds an unnecessary layer of complexity; and especially so if one gives human attributes to this being and makes claims that it is involved in human affairs etc.

[google.com]

Darn! Who wants to try to talk to that bald asshole! He talks over both the lady and the caller. His style turns one off completely.

Maybe this helps.

Does it not strike you as somewhat odd that all of those who believe in a heaven and hell have managed to create one for themselves and nearly everybody around them. If someone believes that there is a heaven or hell which one enters after death then I wonder why they are waiting, surely they should be making all haste to get there. However, they may find as Nietzsche said: "In heaven all the interesting people are missing."

Most of us are free thinkers who dispassionately look at evidence

Examine the evidence...that is how we evaluate anything prior to concluding whether or not we believe it to be true. In these present times of so called alternative facts, it still holds as true as ever...there is no alternative to facts, alternative facts are fiction at best and downright lies at worst. This has always been true, and after 13.8 billion years of known existence of our universe, there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of a creator. Logic tells me that on laws of probability therefore, that the likelihood of one existing is nil. Evil and suffering are sadly part of the human condition, along with a propensity to believe in a non-existent and wholly manmade god.

I think it’s great that you’re considering possibilities. Having given god away with Santa and the Tooth Fairy as mythical, it worries me that people still think that a reasonable/ good all powerful being could allow this level of inhumanity in the world. At best such a being would be a bit sadistic, from my point of view.
All the best with making sense of it, from your view point.

Could you elaborate? What does the Kalam really makes you think?

"Not knowing" and "having doubts" makes you wiser than all the televangelists combined. If you question your beliefs sincerely, examine the evidence rigorously, and then at the end of it, you still hold those beliefs and find they're consistent with the evidence, more power to you. It's those who hold a blind faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary that drive me batshit.

agnostic theists - sounds contradictory to me. These days people come up with all kinds of questionable composite positions. I myself as an atheist prefer to focus on creating a religion free secular world based on science, reason and social and economic justice, even if I won't live to see it.

"Evil and suffering" good and bad? Which party gets to judge what is good and bad? The eagle or the mouse.

Let me assuage your doubts. Supernatural beings aren't real...ever, under any circumstances. They don't exist and neither do the magical realms they supposedly inhabit. The only thing that keeps them around is the irrational faith of all the people who have talked themselves into believing it by citing bullsh-t like the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Two useful points to remember:

First, the universe didn't come from nothing, it came from something we can't explain because before the Big Bang, reality as we understand it didn't exist. How can anyone explain pre-reality? That's why theists think they can shoehorn their unproven God into it. Don't let them.

Second, the bottom line of ALL arguments in favor of God is that in order to believe any of them, you have to accept that they're trying to validate the notion that there's an invisible magical superbeing who reigns from his kingdom in the sky. That's fine in a game of D&D or in a movie or a book but otherwise it's just effing ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature.

The kalam doesn't prove their is a first cause. The kalam doesn't prove there is a god either.

Regarding Kalam, you might be interested in this:

The Epicurean dilemma was a prime motivating factor in my eventual dismissal of a personal, albeit capricious god, who, it is said, occasionally interferes with the natural chain of cause and effect. Having abandoned the notion of a personal, interactive deity, I retreated to the god of my avatar.

Deism advances the idea that an all-powerful being created the universe and its laws, then moved on to other more pressing matters, never to be heard from or seen. To the Deist, by the time human beings evolved, this supreme being had been completely absent for the better part of 13.7 billion years!

But even this idea is unsatisfying. Prior to the creation of the universe, what was this deity doing? How long had it existed in the nothingness of a non-existent universe? And what possible benefit do we gain by believing in something that can in no way be proven to exist and has zero impact on our own existence?

The premise might be wrong: maybe the universe always existed. The Big Bounce theory (as opposed to the Big Bang) postulates the universe is in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction.
If you then say, 'Yes but how can that be? It must have had a beginning,' to that many would say, 'Well then 'god' must have too.'
'But god didn't HAVE a beginning,' to which they would say, 'Then maybe the universe didn't either.'
After all, energy can be neither created nor destroyed...

Any and all of any combination of theist, agnostic, and atheist are all of a kind: religious literalists. They either believe, don’t believe, or believe it can’t be known whether a literal God exists. All of it depends on the presence or absence of a belief in a literal God.

The other kind - religious figuratism - doesn’t depend on the presence or absence of belief. It is an observable, historic fact. Metaphor exists.

[agnostic.com]

.

Why is this important to you? Maybe try thinking about real things you could do that would improve the actual world we inhabit?

Nobody “knows”. Anybody who says they do “know” is either mis-communicating or lying.

Why does one feel the need to create an invisible, imaginary being in order to create the universe? Why is it difficult to understand and accept that Nature and the laws that govern it has the same abilities of creation that any god(s) have? Nature is real, you can experience Nature with all your senses, can observe it, can test it, make predictions based on it. You do not have to imagine it.

Meh.
I'm an atheist. Unless and until there is credible and verifiable evidence to prove the existence of any god, I'm going to continue to live my life without believing in any of them.
Saying, "I don't know", is absurd.

For me, it's no different than saying, "I don't know if unicorns and leprechauns exist, so I'm going to leave the door open for that."
All gods are myths, just like unicorns and leprechauns.
All "holy" books are fiction as well.
All. Of. Them.