Do you believe in a non-natural universe creator?

Natural events are subject to natural laws. Therefore, the very first cause could not have been a natural event, it had to be SUPERNATURAL! I call Him God who created the Universe!

Do you mean if I believe in the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker? No. Because if I did believe in the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker, then I would have to wonder whether or not there would be a thing that made the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.

As you can imagine, this can lead to an infinite (and I dare say, somewhat confusing) regression. Therefore, the assumption that there is a the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker, would take us no closer to understanding the origins, the hows and the whys of this universe.

P.S. I shamelessly nicked "The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker" from a compatriot of yours, A Mr Non Stamp Collector, whose Youtube videos - which of course includes one on the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker - are very witty, funny as well as very adept at ripping in to theistic logic and showing up religion for what it is.

I have no concept of what "non-natural" is, and I would submit, no one does.

====================

"X is not a natural force or being. It may be part of the natural world, but is also beyond it."

It either is part of the natural world, or it is not. It can't be both.

If it IS part of the natural world, then, there would be physical evidence left behind.

No. I do not.

It's the "creator" concept which I find most flawed. (For example, I would not say that clouds "create" rain.)

Additionally, I don't really understand what non-natural would even entail.....and I question how our senses - which are 100% natural - could detect something non-natural.

In the beginning there was only God and he is made of magnificent energy more glorious than anyone can imagine. Everyone thinks he is an a form similar to man but he is not. And us as part of the divine are living this life in human form to learn and grow spiritually and when we are done we return to the divine source and we do maintain our individuality. I saw this in a vision and felt the presence of other souls and felt a love more wonderful than can be described in human terms. If only this could be conveyed to those who do not believe. A wonderful future awaits all who desire to return to our source of life and energy and from which all things were made. All souls are a part of him yet with a separate consciousness. All of us are a part of God and it is glorious and wonderful.

There's a serious ontological problem with your question, namely, what does "natural" mean? We know in food production there is a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" ingredients. By analogy, a being that is not "natural" would be... what? artificial? But "artifice" implies an artificer. The being you posit, which I shall call "God", is by definition the source of all creation, ergo not a product of artifice. So ontologically speaking, this God must be the pinnacle of naturalness, untouched and indeed untouchable by artifice.

I believe in a "natural universe creator"...

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4. Bible).

Yes. I believe that the universe is the child of the God and Goddess.

God created existence. That is the universe and everything beyond it.

Nothing exists outside nature, nothing.

"Supernatural" means it is beyond reality, nonexistent.

This also proves there is no supernatural creator.

Supernatural is another word for superstition.

We no longer need superstition.