When I was complaining about the "but satt, it's always possible you are wrong about that!" argument, I wasn't complaining about all arguments that have "you are wrong, satt, therefore I am right" as a conclusion. I'm only taking issue with people mumbling "well, have you ever considered you might be wrong?" without elaborating. There's nothing wrong with someone arguing I might be wrong about something. But they should at least give a hint as to why I'd be wrong.

If someone demonstrates all the known options are wrong, that doesn't mean it's a wrong question, it means we don't have an answer yet.

What I've just said might be mistaken. But you haven't given any specifics as to where or how it goes wrong, so your comment is just another form of "but satt, it's always possible you are wrong about that!", which doesn't help me.

Allow me to elaborate.

Explanation A, "The buck stops here because it just does" is not an explanation. See "Explain, Worship, Ignore".

B & C, "It's always been there" and "It's in a causal loop" both fail to explain why the universe is not in another counterfactual state, and thus are not explanations, they are merely descriptions of the thing we are trying to explain.

Since the explanation cannot be A, B or C, it must be something other than A, B or C. (Almost a tautology, but worth stating explicitly.)

You are taking it as axiomatic that there are no other possible answers - which, indeed, has a high prior probability, since neither of us can think of any others. Thus, you conclude that there is something wrong with this argument.

I, on the other hand, feel that this little proof should cause us to update our prior that these are the only possibilities.

Does that answer your question?