The problem with answers like this is that it is entirely manufactured in order for it to sound convincing to yourself. And you can do that because you can literally describe god any way that you like.
But when we see explanations like that, they don't make sense. If we dig into your description, it falls apart. For example: you mentioned that god is like numbers and abstract ideas that exist without cause. When we asked why the universe could not be such a thing, you said that a universe can potentially not exist. Yet, we can't see how abstract ideas and numbers can exist if there is no universe that they describe. When asked how you know god is not somebody's abstract idea, you said that abstract ideas don't create anything. So...basically, you are contradicting your original claim that he is like abstract ideas and numbers, because you will always have an exception when we press you on it. In other words, he is NOT like abstract ideas and numbers. And the fact that there are always exceptions, sir, is a special pleading fallacy.
When it boils down to it, you will have an answer for everything that we ask, because you can define god in any way that makes sense TO YOU. You can't demonstrate that he IS that description, you just assert he is.
