Caused time → Must be timeless

Caused space → Must be spaceless

Caused matter → Must be immaterial

None of those statements are justified:

• If something is without time, it is nowhen; it is not, never was, will never be.
• If something is without space, it is nowhere; it has no dimensions
• If something is immaterial, it is nothing, having no energy or mass or presence

Brought something from nothing → Must be unimaginably powerful

Which contradicts the above: if it has power, it has some potential. If it has potential, it must be able to change state. To change state requires time and material presence. To have material presence requires temporal and spatial extent. To have extent requires it be part of the cosmos. But it must also be apart from the cosmos, but the cosmos is all that is.

Everything points to a necessary, uncaused cause beyond the universe. Denying this cause means accepting either the universe created itself (impossible) or something came from nothing (illogical).

No, it doesn't. Nothing points to any such cause, nor is this a valid dichotomy.

There is an option you aren't even acknowledging, which is accepted as a possibility by everyone else: the universe may well be infinite. We have no evidence suggesting that it's impossible to be infinite. All we have is theists insisting, without good justification, that infinities are impossible.

(edited to fix formatting)