Let me try with simple words and sentences, maybe that way it's easier for you. This is what you have as ''evidence'':
Cause and effect, complexity and entropy. You want to show that the universe had a beginning, fine by me, you also want to show that everything has a cause, let's say that's right, then you also want to show that the universe is really complex so whatever made the universe has to be complex too. Even if I agree with these arguments, the only thing you are showing is that the universe had a cause that has to be complex. There is nothing else in your argument that indicates the creator of the universe is Yahweh. There is nothing that indicates anything really besides what I said. We don't know if something can even exist outside the universe, I could say giant elephants with superpowers live outside the universe and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.
Do you understand the flaws in your argument? There is nothing in your argument that rules out the possibility of different creators working together for example, also nothing in your argument indicates that it has to be an all knowing all powerful god (Yahweh)
Seems like your argument is trash after all, hopefully you understand it this time.
The flaw in your thinking has to do with this: You neglect to show anything in the universe that produces complexity without some greater complexity causing it. In fact, the simple fact that complex things appear to be caused by simple things in some cases, really shows that the complexity of the causer is greater. Why? Because it makes the final complex things come out of simple things... when it would have been much easier to simply make the less complex things directly.
So, now you want to give the great God proven by science, a name. And the name you use is the one from the Christian religion. Can you never keep religion out of it?

As I said, even if we agree with that premise, nothing in your argument indicates what caused the universe. Just that it had to be more complex, so what? How do you go from something that has to be more complex to Yahweh? You didn't answer anything, my whole argument still stands, your argument indicates absolutely nothing about who created the universe, could be multiple entities, could be something entirely different, you claim it's Yahweh, yet you have literally no proof.
If you PMed me
that question (Yahweh), this doesn't mean that I would have to answer. If you have an argument in the things you express, it isn't for this thread. When you bring in the NAME, it has to do with religion. this is a science thread. How in the world many times does someone need to tell you
that before you get it through your abnormally thick skull?
This thread, in case you haven't noticed, is about scientifically proving the existence of God. Any argument that you use that includes the NAME, doesn't have anything to do with this thread, whether your argument stands or not. Start a new thread if you like.
The fact that God is scientifically proven to exist by the combination of C&E, entropy, and complexity as they stand in this universe, is evident to all of science that is looking for truth. If this isn't enough, throw in the machine nature of the universe, and the fact that machines have makers, and the proof becomes super-solid.

You can replace Yahweh with god in my argument if you need to. You obviously mean Yahweh when you say god, as far as I know you don't believe in Zeus, you said plenty of times you believe in the god from the bible.
nothing in your argument indicates what caused the universe. Just that it had to be more complex. ''If this isn't enough, throw in the machine nature of the universe, and the fact that machines have makers, and the proof becomes super-solid.'' Redundancy, this would prove that the universe has a maker, I already agreed with that statement, so what? Machines have makers, the universe is a machine? Fine, lets say it is, the universe has makers then, so what, again? How do you know it's only 1 maker and it's a god? How do you know it's not many creators and how do you know they are gods? Your argument does not say they have to be gods, it just says they/it has to be more complex than the universe.
Again, your argument is meaningless.