Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.
That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.
The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.
It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.
You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.
"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.
The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.
Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.
I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows.
As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause".
In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god.