We know the universe exists (well, I do, you may be confused about that issue.) We don't know God exists. Asserting God as creator doesn't solve the question of how nothing created something (God.)
If God can always exist, then the same logic applies to the much simpler dumb matter that makes up the universe.
You begin by pleading experience, so I will appeal to the same court: Is there anything of significant complexity in the universe that you "know exists" that, in your experience, came about by its own power or by the power of something less complex? (E.g., a pocketwatch or an eyeball or a Toyota or a loaf of bread.) By the very experience on which you rely, you must conclude that complexity is not spontaneous.
Asserting God as creator doesn't solve the question of how nothing created something (God.) If God can always exist, then the same logic applies to the much simpler dumb matter that makes up the universe.
You've missed the point entirely. The hypothesized "God" isn't just another natural layer of greater complexity (a turtle on top of a turtle). The point of the "God" hypothesis is that no series of natural causes suffices to explain nature as we perceive it. The point is, after however many layers of natural "creators" you want to assume exist, there will still be the unanswered ultimate question. The God hypothesis simply says because these things cannot be satisfactorily answered by the natural realm alone, we must conclude that there is also a supernatural realm. It's a whole different ballgame. Why do you assume that "nothing" must have preceded "God," when the very point of the supernatural hypothesis is that, in a way that is far beyond our natural experience, there must be an "unmoved mover" at the beginning of the chain of causes?