Not at all. If you insist, let's take it from the top:

• I wanted to convey my reasoning, let's call it R.

• I quoted a claim of the form "because P is true, Q is true", where R is essentially "if P then Q". This was a rhetorical device, to help me convey what R is.

• I indicated clearly that I don't know whether P or Q are true. Later I said that I suspect P is false.

• Note that my reasoning is, in principle, falsifiable: if P is true and Q is false, then R must be false.

• While Q may be relatively easy to check, I think P is not.

• I expect to have other means of proving R.

• I feel that I'm allowed to focus on conveying R first, and attempting to prove or falsify it at a later date. The need to clarify my ideas helped me understand them better, in preparation of future proof.

• I stated clearly and repeatedly that I'm just conveying an idea here, not providing evidence for it, and that I agree with readers who choose to doubt it until shown evidence.

Do you still think I'm at fault here?

EDIT: Your main objection to my presentation was that Q could be false. Would you like to revise that objection?