I get what you're saying Antipas, however, the question of god requiring a creator is a logical question.

The complexity of life is generally used as "proof" of a creator. Why then does this infinitely complicated being not also require a creator for the same reasons? That spirit is different than mass and motion and somehow works by different rules is a statement of faith not logic.

Ultimately it boils down to an argument of faith against the argument of logic.

However one justifies that we require a creator, the same logic can be applied to god. If you have to take a leap of faith to presume that god needs no creator, what is the logical reason for not just simplifying and saying we need no creator?

Many believers call this arrogance. I say that it is the arrogance of man that demands that he be a special creation of some all-perfect being. The idea that man is the result of random chance is humbling rather than a source of arrogance.