My thoughts about god, singular or plural has evolved although I doubt they're particularly original. Religion, organised or otherwise, I have come to learn is something else altogether, and my general rule is to ignore them wherever possible. I feel that religion is at a first approximation a political group. In both good ways and bad. When religious groups come together to say try and feed and clothe poorer people, or evoke antiwar sentiment that's political in some sense, only vaguely related to the notion of god. When religious groups come together to bomb abortion clinics, again only vaguely related to the notion of god, that's also a political movement. Politics, often tending to be divisive, means that religious groups are sometimes drawn into the whole icky mess. But regardless of that, politics has nothing to do with the concept of a supernatural being capable of creation, destruction, and other regular suspension of the rules of the universe. Having said that I will outline my progression of god or gods.

When I was younger, perhaps 16 or so I decided that there must be a big god in the sky if only to create the universe, set up the laws of physics, and just sort of give the whole thing a big shove. To me this satisfied my understanding of the world, and in this sense I viewed the whole thing as irrelevant in a moral sense. God just got things going, but didn't actually do anything after. In a sense, god existed in a superset of our universe where the normal rules of cause and effect (I was very hard stuck on the idea of cause and effect).

After rolling this idea in my head for a little while (maybe two years) I realised that if I just need god to push start the universe, then technically I didn't actually need god to be a conscious being. In addition, there's that annoying problem of infinite recursion. That is, if god exists in a superset of the universe where cause and effect don't work the same, then what created that universe. If I relax the criteria of cause and effect, then strictly speaking I can stick anything to create the universe. That doesn't seem like a strong argument, although I'm not clear whether the empiricist philosophies strictly require good arguments to work. Nature is going to do its own thing, even if you don't agree that it makes sense.
So I just decided, to make things simpler, that I wasn't going to have any gods poking around in my universe, that we'll just throw the god away and keep the superset of the universe by itself. In other words, I was just saying there's a basic rule in the universe that in a complete vacuum, lacking not only gas and matter, but space and time, these things get created. So I was an atheist in the same way Bertrand Russel was; don't believe but can't prove it.

So this position worked for a good deal of time, perhaps five or so years at which point I decided to think a little more about it. Although my position hasn't changed; I'm still an atheist that can't prove it, I no longer strongly believe that the universe can create itself. I think the question of the "origin of the universe" doesn't quite make sense. The reason is, "the universe", in this context basically means origin of all things. So the question can be rephrased as what is the origin of all origins? Origins don't have origins; they are supposed to be the start and when you start asking the origin of the origin you're going to be stuck in infinite recursion.
To put it another way, if we come up with some model of the universe, whether it be god, or the big bang, or whatever else, it seems to me it is always going to have some components. Those components are going to interact in whatever way and the model may even be the best possible description of the world. But the deeper meaning of "is there a god", at least to me, is what is the cause of this model. And I don't think that will ever make sense, at least to me, and it may be impossible for humans to imagine a way to answer that question (assuming the question can be answered). In the same way that a regular grammar cannot model a context free grammar, it may be that the question of the origin of the universe may not be modeled on the human brain. Or at least mine.
The point is, even if you want to believe in a god, gods, big bang theory, turtles all the way down, or whatever, at some point you have to assume something, and as far as I see it, it is impossible to prove that assumption in terms of a larger theory, because then you have to prove the assumptions of the larger theory are also correct, which bring us back to square one. I suspect that this is some kind of variant on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but I confess I do not understand that particularly well.