That demonstrates, at least, that you have no idea what empirical substantiation is.
Basically, the argument states that the universe is ruled by a set of laws and that a law-ruled universe required a universal ruler.
Right. The naive “language tricks” argument where one uses the fact that “law” has different meanings in different contexts as a device for conflating those different meanings with one another. The problem, of course, is that verbal gimcrackery does not suffice to do things which only evidence can do.