There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.
Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".
Your move...
Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".
Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)
This was the one thing that I never really understood about origin arguments based on god. If god existed in the beginning, then it to must have been created somehow, so it's also just as likely that the universe itself was there at the beginning.
The best logical idea I have that allows for a god is that god exists outside of the universe, like a programmer running a simulation able to make tweaks. However for such a large scale simulation then it is likely utilizing something like procedural generation where the programmer does not have full control. Even in that scenario we are left with the question of how the higher level univers of the gods was created. Ultimately, it just ends up looping back on itself until you accept that SOMETHING is simply the original state.