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

Many do not share my opinions but I find "agnostic theist" to be an oxymoron. A person is either a believer or they are not. If one ever did believe (as I once did) it is also crazy for others to assert that you must try all the religions before you decide. Why do we want an entity to be a first cause? Equally on this, I do not know if there was a big bang. Having not been there I cannot tell you about noise. For me, Kalam does not make sense as I cannot tell you when the universe began to exist. Nothing written in religious books of any kind help me with this. I'm also not convinced of a "brain in a vat" or simulation arguments. People go out of their way to convince you that ancients had these ideas. It simply is not so. The arguments made it mainstream today as our technology allowed our brain to do progressive thinking on these subject.

So, what is it about and where did we come from? IDK and any person going by the facts alone will have the same answer.

"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.

Nothing works like skepticism and inquiry.
I couldn't ask more from anyone.

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.

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]

.