It's not "my" theory, but the theory is based upon the known empirical facts; that the universe apparently (according to current evidence) had an origin point where space-time came into existence directly implies some sort of cause exterior to the known space-time continuum.
Logical extrapolation from what we do know into what we do not know is just pure speculation, guesswork, mythology. Often times this leads to scientific breakthroughs but those require experimental evidence. The scientists at CERN are searching for the "god particle" but even that will not confirm the existence of god, or anything else external to our universe.
Unless one wishes to argue that space-time was caused by nothing, or caused by itself, then the existence of an origin point for space-time logically, and necessarily, implicates a cause that lies beyond that physical set. Godel also showed that any existent set is logically dependent upon a larger set that provided the frame work for the existence of the known set, indicating that space-time "nature" as we know it must be supported by some larger or deeper framework.
I am not arguing anything. I am just trying to find out what you are arguing about.
You are conflating experimental evidence that seems to confirm the theory that the universe had a singular beginning point into the non-fact that this beginning point had to come from somewhere else.
You are expecting me to accept unproven assumptions as truth just because they seem to you to be logically unassailable. I am not a big fan of the use of logic as truth, that is faith not science.
Godel speculates as does everyone else who concerns themselves with Cosmology which is a branch of Metaphysics.
The only "fact" is that we do not know.
Characterizing the logically necessary implication of known scientific, empirical facts as "mythology" and "science fiction" is nothing more than trying to insert emotional bias into the debate.
There is no logical necessity for something to exist before the universe began. There may be an emotional or religious necessity but not a logical one.
Even though logic may lead one to a conclusion that seems truthful it does not necessarily mean that actual truth has been discovered.
Logic used to dictate that the Earth was the center of the universe. Logic used to dictate that disease was caused by witches. Logic has many pitfalls.
"The universe" might exist as a superset that goes far beyond what is currently accepted by mainstream science, and the presence of what we call the space-time continuum might be a relatively minor subset within that larger framework. Indeed, logic dicatates that this must be the case.
Might, that is the operative word here. Theories about anything beyond the known universe are just speculative guesses, not really any different than mythology. Logic can dictate a lot but not the truth, truth requires experimental evidence, at least as far as science is concerned.
Even if experimental evidence eventually points to extra-universe existence this will by no means imply any intelligent action in the formation of our particular universe unless evidence of the intelligence itself is also discovered.
The reality is that we just do not know and that is what any reasonable scientist will admit. Only an unreasonable non-scientist insists that their speculation be taken as truth when all they have is a train of logic.
Me, I am waiting for the experimental evidence to come in before I agree with anything.