Helm I can't at the moment respond to everything you wrote, but the foundation of your understanding people like me is flawed.
You begin by assuming that I invented God out of some kind of need I had. I didn't invent God at all. You have to prove I did because many of your beliefs are founded on that assumption. But as long as you do that, I won't make any sense to you.
That's kinda where I was trying to get at. But...
You did not invent God, that's true. There was something inside you (and all of us for the matter), maybe since you gave your first steps, that would answer your questions, and question your answers. A "self" not tangible even by the ultimate grasps of conscience which makes even stranger to us that it's called a self.
This imbroglio can evolve into many things such as faith, the relation of your self with the self of others, which may be very true the God inside of all.
I guess what Helm is trying to, is to get an answer (the need he believes you had) that determines the turning point or realization of the presence/existence of a God.
That's a valid and fair questioning even though something like that is hard to pinpoint since most of the time is a road of events (life, difficulties faced in, problems, joys, questions answered or not). That's why I said he isn't trying to understand, it takes a lot more than the 2 to substitute x in 1 + 1 = x.
EDIT:
Just so it doesn't see like I went over Helm's reply:
The risky questions as exemplified are as complicated as it gets. It's like question "how did we get here?" and hoping for an answer that suits.
A scientist can go as far as the creation of the cosmo, but before that there wasn't?
I see you are genuinely interested in seeing a reasoning behind his faith, but first you should be aware that this goes far beyond if god is thermodinamically (sp?) possible or not.