Describe the flaws in this argument; "If the Universe does require a creator, why doesn't God?"?

One flaw is that it assumes the creator of a material universe would be material - made of matter. That's flawed because time has to exist first, before any matter in our universe can exist, because it takes time for matter to expand, and our universe is an expanding universe. The creator of time, space and matter, has to be in existence before time began and must be immaterial. Operating in timelessness ('eternity' in Bible-speak) and being Spirit (not material) this creator is in another dimension altogether.

The second flaw in that argument is the word 'require' when applied to God. Yes, the universe requires to be made, started, set in operation, for it is mindless matter and cannot do anything without external forces operating on matter. It requires creative external forces to make it what it is. Even if it's argued that 'the laws of physics' were the external forces operating on it, those laws could not come out of nowhere, for it takes intelligence to give rise to coherent, cohesive laws. Those laws have no intelligence, in and of themselves.

When non-believers in God claim that any creator would require to be made, then they are only postponing the unsolvable problem - if that God had a creator, then that creator also needed a creator, and all the way back ad infinitum. It's either turtles all the way down, or creators all the way up. No problem is solved.

Yet given the magnitude of the creator and operating in different dimensions to the ones obtaining in our material universe, nobody can logically claim that the creator required to even make this universe. He chose to do that. This means that creatures like us, with intelligence, must acknowledge that the creator of this universe, and of us, is way above and beyond our ability to conceptualise. We would do better to work with the self-revelation God has already given us and learn of this creator's qualities and intelligence. That takes a degree of humility, lack of which is another flaw in the arguments of those who deny our universe required a creator.

Imaginary fantasies are not required to follow rules of logic.

The flaw is that the argument assumes that there is a god.

Until you seek forgiveness for your sins, and if you do not pray to God, things remain as you have seen them!

No flaw at all.

It is logically correct (if not grammatically)

Well, I know the universe exists. I do not know about God.

But lets dig deeper. First, was the universe created? We think the known observable universe was created in the "Big Bang" event. This created all matter, stars, planets, etc. But wasn't it still the universe before these things existed? We can say God exists outside the universe, but is there an outside the universe? perhaps the universe is eternal and omnipresent.

The only flaw I notice is that if you are a creationist that argument will not fit your creationist fantasy.

Assuming one believes in God, that person would say God is God and needs no creator by very nature/definition.

There is no flaw in that argument. God DOES require a creator. Its name is Vrondoblat.

Vrondoblat didn't need a creator because Vrondoblat is a vronlaplorp, which, as everyone knows, doesn't need a creator.

It assumes that there's proof for God's existence.