Why does God exist?

[Undeceived]

...
According to our universal laws, everything needs a cause--including the universe. Therefore a force outside of our universal laws must be responsible. Why do you disagree with this?

You're committing a quantifier-shift fallacy.

I am speaking on the molecular level. The first atoms don't simply exist, they began to exist. Scientists admit to a burst of positive energy at the "Big Bang." This positive energy needs a catalyst in order to split from the negative energy. So I reach the conclusion "all things have one cause" on reasoning separate from the single premise "all observed things have a cause." It is quite possible for both ends of
[For every A, there is a B, such that C. Therefore, there is a B, such that for every A, C ]
to be true. It is only fallacious when you use the whole as your deduction.
To be clearer, my argument: According to observation and testing of our universal laws, all transference of energy has had a cause. Also, all causes create a transference of energy. No cause has been observed without a transference and no transference has been observed to be without cause. Therefore, all transference of energy necessitates a cause. Hence, any production of atoms using energy also needs a cause. Therefore the universe could not have begun without a cause. I conclude we need either a catalyst not bound to this law of causation (non-natural) or one outside of the universe's closed system (also technically non-natural).
Why do you disagree?

---

Universal means everything, how can there be a force outside of everything? In fact "outside everything" is meaningless.

Universal means everything in the universe. Why can there not be something outside of the universe (exo-universal)? Our laws seems to require that there be, lest we fall into paradox.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that your argument is capable of reaching a conclusion on the "supernatural"? Good luck with that.

[Darkstar]

To be clearer, my argument: According to observation and testing of our universal laws, all transference of energy has had a cause. Also, all causes create a transference of energy. No cause has been observed without a transference and no transference has been observed to be without cause. Therefore, all transference of energy necessitates a cause. Hence, any production of atoms using energy also needs a cause. Therefore the universe could not have begun without a cause. I conclude we need either a catalyst not bound to this law of causation (non-natural) or one outside of the universe's closed system (also technically non-natural).
Why do you disagree?

How do we know that our universe isn't all that there is? You assume that our universe is a closed system, but there can still be things outside of it. Likewise, 'because he must exist' is a reason, but not a cause. It tells why you think he exists, but it provides no actual evidence to any cause for his existence. That leaves you with two possibilities: a spontaneous catalyst (or at least one we don't understand yet) caused a grand chain reaction, creating the universe, or a spontaneous god manipulated every aspect of the universe's development from the start. Keep in mind that despite being omnipotent, god couldn't have created himself, for he wouldn't have existed to do so. He would have to be spontaneous, or have a cause infinitely more complex than a simple energy catalyst + physics
+ time.