Does God negate the need for his own existence?

In answer to the original question: "if God created the universe, then who created God". Though I don't have any records, I'm quite certain that question has been asked billions of times over the past couple millennia. That's not to say it's bad of course. I asked myself the same many times over the years, and I rather enjoy flipping it around my mind on occasion. That being said, I think the simple answer looks like: Or Thus, it is not that something bigger (God) is needed to create something smaller (the physical universe), and so something would still have needed to created the bigger thing (God). It's the logical conclusion that since the known laws of the physical universe dictate that all effects have a cause, or all reactions have an action, that something metaphysical must exist (or have existed), to push the first domino (caused the first cause). The governing laws of the physical universe neccesitate the existence of 'God' (a metaphysical or supernatural entity).Another way to look at it is; without an uncaused cause, or unmoved mover, cause and effect become infinite regression. Fine for theory (or more often, disproving theory), but an absurdity when applied to reality (the physical universe). Or, similarly, infinity is impossible in reality. Maybe you've heard this. If you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and occupants, and a room is emptied, how many rooms are full? Infinity minus one? What if one more occupant fills a room? Do you have infinity plus one occupants? Math is fun to play with, and of great value, but sometimes when applied to the real-world it becomes a logical absurdity. Or, if theory denies the reality upon which it is based, theory becomes absurdity. So an infinity of time in the physical universe is an impossibility by the laws of this physical universe. Something metaphysical, something outside the laws which govern this universe, must have started time.That's the simple answer. I hope I explained it clearly. I tried to restate words and phrases, as philosophy seems to have a really difficult time defining it's own language.There were also some comments about the laws of time and causality being "broken down" in the pre-big bang 'dot universe' (all time/space/matter/energy supressed to a minuscule 'dot'), and so a 'creator' would not be needed. But why would this 'dot' do anything different than it had done 'before' (for lack of a better term). I.e. if it were eternally existant, why is it not still a 'dot'. Another aspect of the above arguments is that unless the supernatural entity is intelligent, why would it have 'begun' anything. The cause needed for the physical universe is not merely a supernatural universe (an empty universe existing outside our own with no governing laws), but a supernatural intelligence which caused the supernatual ability of the supernatural entity to cause the physical universe. So an ungoverned-universe-dot still would require a 'cause' to not remain an ungoverned-universe-dot.Hopefully that's written intelligably. Feel free to ask for further explanation. I only ask that you be wary of derisive critisism unless you really understand what I'm talking about (i.e. you've studied these matters before in greater depth).