We've never witnessed any need for gods in any aspect of nature, so why presume we need one for the beginning of our natural universe? Simply because you can't fathom it?
I don't presume but deduce as a best guess.
precisely because, nature isn't an aspect of nature is it? I think presuming that the laws of nature can be fully accounted for by those same laws is a fundamentally paradoxical fallacy, as it would be to presume that the code that operates this website wrote itself.
because I can't fathom a natural explanation ? no I can't and neither can anybody else.
to use an atheist favorite analogy;
If you asked me to explain a watch existing without any creative intelligence involved in it's creation- I'd be forced into the following options
1. It just always existed so cannot have had a creator intelligent or otherwise (static universe)
2. The watch contains an automated mechanism to recreate itself in an endless cycle (big crunch)
once these two are debunked by scientific observation, my last options are even more desperate
3. It's the product of an invisible unfalsifiable infinite probability machine which produced this watch
along with an infinite number of other possible objects... oh and that machine made itself also (Hawking)
4. it was the product of a machine which just happens by coincidence to make watches, which is as probable an outcome as any random outcome and if it didn't we wouldn't be talking about it (Krauss).
The last two can never be falsified of course, in which sense they must always be 'possible' even if inherently unscientific. Just as they are possible explanations for the watch on my wrist right now, I think the question becomes; regardless of our preferences, are they the most likely answers?