The problem lies with the perception that matter is something that we look at and that what we are looking at has always existed in its present form, or that it was created in its present form, and that it will always exist in its present form, none of which is correct. (The same can be said for time, but that is beyond the scope of this answer.)
What we perceive is temporary, and though it is extremely old from our perspecitve, it is not eternal, it is not really "solid", it is energy.
There are a lot of things about matter that we assume that is false, we continually learn more about it and the universe and the more we know the more we know that there is no need for God to be involved and certainly no "personal" god.
All matter was created shortly after Big Bang. The best theory we have is that masses of sub-atomic particles were created and then annihilated and a very small number remained which went on to create what we see today.
Some of the weirder things about this unique (we think) incident is that immediately after the event the universe was expanding at a rate above light speed. Impossible? Not really, because light exists IN the universe those rules had not yet been created.
Google for Planck Time (tP) and you'll find lots of stuff on this event - tP is such a fine grained measure that it's used to describe the moments immediately after Big Bang while the universe was no bigger than a football.
Getting your head around this isn't easy: it's far easier to believe in a god - which is why so many do.
also consider that if their god doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe?
Yeah, this was what I was getting at.
And additionally, the reasoning that basically states "I don't understand how that works, so it must be magical" is also flawed. It is quite a jump to a conclusion to state that complete ignorance ("I don't know at all") leads to a definitive conclusion ("God did it").
That's what is hard to grasp in our "natural" world of cause and effect on earth.
Matter is infinate. No need for a beginning. "It" always was and always will be. Sounds like an old Hindu spiritual teaching doesn't it?
It's a chain of infinite regress that is only broken by the assertion of the theist that their deity is infinite/timeless etc.
The assertion is non-falsifiable and there is no evidence to support it. It's therefor not logical to accept it as true, and it is in no way a proof for the existence of their deity.
Seriously, just replace deity with "Zoltar, destroyer of Worlds" and you'll see how baseless such an assertion really is.
"We don't know" is my answer to the question of "where does matter come from" albeit it not emotionally satisfying, it is truthful and not knowing something is nothing to be ashamed of. Claiming to know when it is in fact belief, is something to be ashamed of, especially when this certainty is unjustly used to ridicule the position of someone who claims no knowledge.
That said, I do think that the multiverse an interesting and poetic idea, I can only attest to it's coolness however, not to it's veracity because I am not schooled in any kind of physics, except by popular culture.
Per the article below we supposedly have already created matter from a vacuum. That is, our idea of nothing (a vacuum) is really a balance of existing matter and antimatter that wipes out the physical properties of each to give the impression of nothing when there is really something.
To me the thing that seems to have always existed is balance or opposites of some kind. This is consistent with the universe not being the result of a biased god but of complete randomness. In randomness everything is given an equal chance so that balance is maintained. This is consistent with Hawking's position that the universe was spontaneously created along with many others.