The premise is absurd from a Christian understanding - a biblical understanding - of God (the only one I believe really matters). To suggest that God must necessarily have a creator is the same sort of naturalistic rubbish that Dawkins builds his argument against God's existence on. His argument is one of the worst arguments ever proposed against God's existence, so I wouldn't start there. It's entirely blind to its own presuppositions. Let me offer you a historically orthodox Christian theological response to this proposal of yours.
Yahweh does not have a creator. He is that other than which there is nothing greater. He's the ultimate reality. If he had a creator, he would not be God. The very names given to God in Scripture allude to his ultimate being ("I Am") and being Lord of all (Yahweh). Think about that. He is the first 'cause.' The problem with much post-Enlightenment criticism of God is that skeptics (and a great many theologians as well) try to conform God to the limits of our intellect.
What we know of God we know entirely from his revelation in nature, certain acts of history, and the Bible (from which we interpret the previous two). But this is only the tip of the iceberg. God does act in a rational way because part of his image imprinted on his creation is rational, but our understanding of reason and its proper role is much less than perfect. He has enabled us to know him truly, but not fully. The revelation he has given us must then temper our use of other resources if he is really God.
With all of eternity, we will not exhaust the knowledge of God. It is impossible because we are not God. God is morally responsible for his creation because this is a logical necessity, but we also understand that the Bible speaks of God being completely good, just, and wise - there is no darkness in him at all. The predications about God found in Scripture can be our only determinative framework with which to understand God. Anything else is ultimately idolatry of the mind. This is where the aspect of a 'humble orthodoxy' comes in. To be orthodox in our belief about God requires a bit of humility before our limitations.
Every creature and structure in this reality is answerable to a higher authority, ultimately. God is God because (not only because, but partly because) he is not answerable to a higher authority. He is the ultimate authority, thus his 'Lordship.' If he were anything else, he would cease to be God by necessity.
Finally, Scripture gives us no warrant for the proposal that God is answerable to anyone but himself. This doesn't reconcile easily in our minds because it's foreign to the postmodern mindset that anyone can be beyond deconstructing. Personally, I would have strong doubts about a God that I could exhaustively understand and ascribe an authority over.