Well, if the universe could not have been brought into being from physical causes (because there was no physical stuff in existence before the universe came into being), then what could have brought the universe into being? A little deductive reasoning brings the following description of the cause of the universe to light:
1.) Immaterial (since there was no material stuff before the universe began).
2.) Non-contingent. If the thing that brought the universe into being is itself caused, then we end up having to explain the explanation of the universe (and could possibly end up in an endless line of explanations of explanations, which is impossible). The best explanation of the cause of the universe would be, therefore, necessarily existent, not requiring any explanation for its existence.
3.) Personal. There are really only two things that fit the description of immaterial and non-contingent: abstract objects (like numbers) or an unembodied mind or consciousness. But abstract objects are causally-effete. They cannot cause anything. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the causal agent of the universe, which is necessarily personal.
This is just the most superficial explanation I could give. There are copious sub-arguments that underpin each point that I don't have the time to get into. For a much deeper look into these things check out:
www.reasonablefaith.org
But my analogy was not intended to address any of this stuff. Stretch the analogy if you like, but you have rather ignored my point in doing so.
Well, you might be shocked, then, to know that the field of science cannot even begin unless "believing before you see" occurs. There are a set of things that must be taken entirely on faith - brute givens, they are sometimes called - in order for science to begin. Scientists must assume that the universe is rational in such a way as to be understood by our minds; they must assume that our minds correctly perceive reality and that our senses accurately convey reality to us; they must assume uniformity of nature to justify induction (ie. science must assume that one can legitimately infer from the past to the future and from examined cases to unexamined ones of the same kind); they must assume that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, that language has meaning, and so on. Does science (and scientists), then, necessarily become guilty of massive confirmation bias? Scientists must
believe these things are true in order for science to be seen to be true.
Selah.