In order to believe in God you have to let go of any rationality or logic. That's how.

The infinite regress problem has already been mentioned by @Switchcraft.

The acceptance of the existence claim of God without supporting falsifiable evidence is an exercise in absurdity.

The question about origination makes an unwarranted assumption about the nature of time.

I have yet to find any theist who can even understand any of the above three ideas, let alone discuss them in any meaningful fashion. /@Betty

God had to be created by some entity. Just another farcical brick in the wall.

I have most certainly heard an explanation, although it’s even more absurd than the stories in the Buybull….
At has been proposed that god created itself. This prospect has been dubbed “self manifestation” theory…..

Well there is a problem. What is meant by God? Simplistically s/he is portrayed as an infinite being watching over humans and dwelling in both this world and a world after death. This is clearly an invention of people. But we perceive a universe and we cannot help but wonder what created the universe. Is the creator a god? It might be easier to say that the universe is an illusion but one still has to wonder what created the illusion. A creator of the universe is something way beyond our comprehension and it is terribly presumptuous to imagine it would have any interest in us.

Sorry to say this, mate, but I can't help feeling that there is something disingenuous about you.

I was told often that god has always existed. When you are a believer you simply take this in because you know the older people believe. Once you do a further study gods become imaginary.

As I understand the theistic concept of God this being has necessary existence and so could never not exist. Accordingly, there was no origination. This is the conclusion of St. Thomas' first three ways (arguments for the existence of God) and also of St. Anselm's ontological argument where God (= that than which nothing greater can be conceived) cannot be conceived to not-exist. Also this seems consistent with the biblical claim of the eternality of God, and so it would be wrong-headed for the believer to attempt an explanation of God's origin.

One Humanist (or Human centered ) view of this is that before God appeared, people were beginning to thank each other where appropriate AND they already had leaders and " lords ' in charge of them. Add puffs of un-realism & spiritualism plus a choice of omnificence that could not be proved wrong so that their new leaders did not get many awkward questions and so became unelectable and "permanent" .

You are not alone. The prime mover arguments have been going on, in town hall debates, and second rate religious publications, it seems like, as endlessly as the cycles of the universe.

But it should always be remembered. That, even if they could prove the need for an intelligent actor to create a universe, and that it could not emerge from, say, a previous universe by natural laws. ( Which they can't.) That still would not get them to "their" God, or even a theist god. As someone said. "Why not just universe farting pixies." It is therefore quite useless as a theist argument. just a clear proof of how one delusion leads to another, when you start down that path.

One idea that it is fun to play with, though only play, because there is nothing to be gained by it. Is the idea held by some cosmologists, that there was no "time" before the universe. That time like space started with the Big Bang, therefore it is pointless to talk about before the big bang. Or that as some have the universe must exist, because nothing is not possible, and if something exists, why not this thing. But if you go down those sort of rabbit holes, be wary off your sanity.

The Big Bang is still an idea. Darwinism is still a theory. Atheists are equally unable to explain, let alone proving how everything came to exist in the universe and on Earth.

Meanwhile, this is how God on Twitter is feeling right now.

If theists are unable to explain the origin of God, are atheists able to explain the origin of nature, matter, energy? As far as I know both sides assume that their X, which lies at the bottom of all things, is eternal, has no origin that needs to explained. Everybody has to assume that something has always been there

The understanding of a religious literalist’s concept of God won’t be found by looking for a rational path that they took to get there. That’s not the path they took.

That doesn’t mean it is beyond your rational understanding - just beyond theirs. As the saying goes, “You can’t reason a person out of a position they were never reasoned into.”

That’s not how they got there. They got their by faith. And the faith mechanism is not beyond understanding if you study the psychology behind it.

Oh sure he/she/it did!!!

That's Sarcasm

I'm pretty sure they just say nothing created their God, he just always existed.

i don't take your need for explanation seriously. don't get me wrong. i myself am agnostic about god and probably other stuff if i really thought it was worth the effort. believers find individual awareness of thier faith, because they want to. maybe that is where their awareness begins. hard to say for me. yet to somehow require god to be explainable is idiotic. expecting explanations of god is pure folly. science and logic etc. is not up to the task. if there is any god awareness to be had it will need to come from somewhere much deeper than what you can think.

And, as far as your first statement "religious advocate..." I only advocate for the, almost 2000 year old usage for the word religion that has definition preserved in biblical text.

Religion comes from etymology of being about taking an oath of responsibility to be careful opposite of neglect.

...popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," ... In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

When ever it comes to illogical atheist types wanting to insert a god thingie to redefine religion to as to be defined as, "sarcasm worship and sarcasm praise to the non-existent philosophical flying spaghetti monster sky God making fun of Christians that doesn't know Jesus is lucipher the devil meme mind virus organism that evolved to mimic homo sapien form ", scholars would say this definition is nonsense.

...however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]

Morreall, John; Sonn, Tamara (2013). "Myth 1: All Societies Have Religions". 50 Great Myths of Religion. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 12–17. ISBN 978-0-470-67350-8.

Nongbri, Brent (2013). Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15416-0.

So, spaghetti monster worship not required to do religion of having empathy to help people.

Please feel free to look over and join my group. It should be about to provide you with understanding that ends christianity, at least when people understand. And, it ends atheism. As I say, it's not magical information, people would need to learn and understand evolution of meme for which once they know the information it makes it reasonable to not be Christian worshipping lucipher the devil meme organism under a guise. And, for atheist to know they are a God and the atheist can believe in themselves to no longer be atheist.

You can click here to go to my group here on agnostic. Or, search the group titles for this name.
"Illogical atheists guide for ending Christianity "

Will that ever be answered. Who created the creator? If we ever figure out the beginning what was there before the beginning began?