Does God negate the need for his own existence?

I was wondering today if the very fact that God exists contradicts that God would need to exist in the first place.When it comes to figuring out what happened before the big bang, there are two main lines of thought:1) God has been around for eternity, and he created the universe
2) The pre-big bang universe has always been there in a very small statePeople will say though that the universe had to come from something, and since something cant come from nothing, it makes sense that God created the universe. When asked where God came from, the general consensus seems to be that he has been around for eternity, and since he created the laws we live by (such as time), he doesn’t actually have a beginning.There seems to be a bit of a paradox in this though. It’s wrong to say that the universe could start from absolutely nothing, but didn’t the same happen to God? Essentially he is something (a god), and he obviously came from nothing himself, so we could go straight back and say the universe then could have come from nothing on its own too (because obviously something can come from nothing). One can't be true without the other being true, and an endless cycle suddenly emerges.Is it any more reasonable to say God came from nothing and existed for eternity over saying the universe came from nothing and existed for eternity? Isn't the only reason the universe needs a creator the same event that created the creator (ie. something coming from nothing)? If God is real, does he negate the need for his own existence?

Exactly. He was never created, he has just ”always been’. It would appear then that this is a legitimate event to just always exist for eternity, which goes against the idea that the universe HAS to come from something, because it couldn’t have ”just always been’. The idea of the universe existing for eternity in pre-big bang mode without a creator seems preposterous (even if it was in a state of a single atom floating in nothing), so people say there must be a creator (eg. "Where did that atom come from?"). In that case, if the universe couldn’t have just ”always been’ because it’s impossible, why do we then say it’s a legitimate state for God because it IS possible? God existing for eternity and creating the universe = plausible
Universe existing for eternity in pre-big bang mode = not plausible.Why?

If the universe existed in its current state for eternity, yes, you would have a point. But pre-big bang, it would be hard to imagine the laws of today being in effect either. Whatever state it was in would have been so tiny that laws we know today would have broken down at that level. It's possible that even the law of time didn't exist because the thing was just so freakishly small (who knows what breaks down at that level). But is it any harder to imagine this pre-big bang universe in a state where time is not a law yet, over God existing for eternity in a state where time is not a law yet? Both are something that has existed for eternity, yet only one is seen as possible. Both could have existed at a point where there were no laws, but only one is seen as possible. Both could be attributed to causing the creation of the universe, but only one is seen as possible. Why? Because everything needs to come from something, and so the universe had to be made somehow. God on the other hand doesn't need to be made. Why is that? If he doesn't need to be made, and it IS possible for something somewhere to exist for eternity in a non-time state and spark creation (ie. God), why did we need to come up with the concept of God in the first place? Didn't we come up with him because something can't exist without being created? So saying "The universe did not come into being, it was always there, at no point was it not there" is an impossible statement, so we need a creator who "did not come into being, he was always there, at no point was he not there", and that seems perfectly reasonable? Aren’t we just applying the same problems to the different scenario? Didn’t we come up with scenario two because scenario one was impossible, but base scenario two off the exact same ideas?