There are a few principal problems with your opening argument.
Firstly, I never established or agreed to those eight tenants. You simply introduced them yourself and then proceeded to show why they were incomplete, yourself. This is certainly a unique attempt to discredit the opposing argument but the problem is you can't choose the opposing side's argument for them. That would be like me saying you believe 2 + 2 = 5, but in fact 2 + 2 = 4. You cannot prescribe an argument, and an incomplete one at that, to your opposition.
Second, as I have already mentioned, that argument your proposed is incredibly incomplete and your interpretation of it displays a significant lack of understanding of the concept of God. If God had a cause he would not be God, rather the result of an action. One of the ten intangible tenants of God is that he is eternal, meaning He has always existed. He is, if you will, the 'unmoved mover'. Meaning all matter possessing things must be 'moved', and if you trace this lineage back to the very first 'moved' thing then you must arrive at an 'unmoved mover', a someone who is outside of 'moving' itself. This all applies to the 'Flaw 1' of the argument you proposed yourself.
Therefore, God didn't cause himself, rather he is 'cause-less'. This assertion should be indisputable. Second, to say that: 'if God has no cause, then why can't the universe' is to suggest that the universe in some way transcends physicality. Certainly, we can agree that matter, and therefore the universe is not eternal.
You also suggest the idea that God was made by a third-party. God is uncreated, he is not made, he is. If he were made he would be just like the universe. And again, to say the universe was 'self-caused', as you put it, would be to say that matter is eternal.
Next, I'm having trouble even understanding your 'Flaw 2'. 'Cause' is not a concept, it is a word used as a metaphor to describe the concept of existence. For example, your cause is your parents, your parents' cause is your grandparents. With that, we must arrive that there is something, or rather someone, that is 'causeless' and does not need a cause to exist because the tenants of our humanity and matter-based world cannot be applied to it because it surpasses said tenants infinitely. Thus, applying this concept to the universe certainly is not a misusage of the concept.
Also, you didn't even make a case for the topic of the debate -- rather you seemingly attempted to disprove the existence of God, or at least suggest that flaw exists in the reasoning for his existence. I assume your intent was that if the argument for God possesses flaw, then all argument surrounding God is flawed as well. The problem with that is you did not prove that flaw exists in the reason for the existence of God. Nor will you be able to, that is the whole point. Religion, while able to be supported by reason, is a concept based on belief. Therefore the assertion you've given yourself, 'All theistic arguments are false', really doesn't even make any sense. False in what sense, in the sense that since God is false they are false as a result? If that were the case it still would not be correct. If you could, which you can't, reasonably show the existence of God to be false then we would only have belief to go off of, and you cannot discredit or argue upon belief. Therefore, while a theistic argument won't hold true to an atheist, it may very well to the billions of people who believe in God.
In conclusion, your opening argument possesses a lot of flaws and I'm curious as to what direction or conclusion you intended to arrive at with this topic. Forgive me if I came off as rude or anything during this, I realize that it can be easy to misunderstand intention when it's online rather than face to face. With that said, I appreciate your participation in this debate and look forward to your rebuttal. Good luck!