No, you're falsely assuming that the causal need for a creator is nullified, simply on the basis of the double slit experiment, when the "falsification of the law of causality" explanation for the results of that experiment is one of the more unlikely and controversial explanations for it. Much more likely is just that we don't understand the underlying nature of the mechanism of causality presented in those results. Ergo, you are drawing conclusions as if they were confirmed, but doing so on the basis of extremely insufficient grounds. Ergo, your logic is fallacious.
Actually I do understand the underlying nature of the double slit experiment. You are the one that doesn't want to accept it. We don't live in an Aristotelian Universe. Deductive reasoning is not the scientific model.