I understand.....what you're saying makes perfect sense to you...thats nice. ....it just seems to me that you're just trying to create another entity to follow.

What is there to "admit"? No one has yet identified any deity as a necessary entity, and no one has even identified a creator as necessary, since existence itself may well be effectively eternal. All those folks have is arguments from incredulity. The universe is awesome, therefore god. Can't be an "accident" (although "accident" is not what anyone is actually suggesting it is).

In any case, as you say -- the quesiton is what? And you can ask 10 people that question and get 12 answers, because any answer is inhernetly unfalsifiable and therefore un[dis]provable. The only defensible answer is "we don't know -- at least not yet".

I have to confess that I'm getting tired of these circle-jerks of speculation about what created us, and how and why. Especially when "how did this all begin" may well be entirely the wrong question to begin with.

Define "natural god". If you can't, then there is a problem.

If I define god as a bottle of hot sauce, I can prove he exists.

In otherwords, you must define something before you can prove it exists. The most popular attributes are omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence. The first one removes him from the laws of nature and therefore, a "natural" god is a contradiction. If you want to provide the core attriubutes that must be provided by "god" in your terms, we can have a rational discussion about whatever that is, but "god" as defined in popular definition cannot be natural.

I would have to say I have no idea in Heaven or Earth what you are talking about.

Why, when I can not even imagine a universe that required a god to exist?