Your argument is Einstein said the workings of the universe constitute a "higher" power and my argument is Einstein said the cause of the workings of the universe constitute a "higher" power.<quoted text>
That "higher power" was the workings of the universe. Spinoza's God. Not some supernatural being.
When asked if he believed in Spinoza's God-
"I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws.......
"I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one."
"Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in which we with our modest powers must feel humble"
Straight forward logic says he is not an atheist because he says so, he doesn't believe he is a pantheist because he says so, and that he is referring to a higher power behind the workings of the universe, behind the laws of nature, again, because he says so.