Here's a stat that should give you pause: change the strength of the strong nuclear force by even half a percent, and stars can't make carbon. No carbon, no us. The universe sits on a razor's edge of constants that look dialed for life. Now, you'll probably say science just explains that with physics. Sure, physics describes the pattern. But it doesn't tell you why there's a pattern at all instead of random chaos. A universe with fixed, orderly laws cries out for something behind the laws. You don't need God as a gap-filler for what science hasn't figured out yet. That's weak. But as the ground of why there's something rather than nothing, and why it's intelligible? That's a different question science can't even ask. So no, it's not unnecessary.

Imagine a library where every book cites another book. You can trace citations forever, but you still haven't explained why there's a library at all. That's basically your point, and it's a good one. A chain of contingent things doesn't explain itself. But then you call the foundation a necessary, intelligent cause. That's not an extra. That's the whole ballgame. A brute necessary universe might exist, but it can't explain why it's orderly, why it's intelligible, or why it produces minds that ask these questions. It just is. A mental ground can account for both existence and order. So when you say God is the necessary foundation, you've actually argued my side. The universe doesn't explain itself, and that makes God necessary, not optional.

Look at a compass needle. You can explain it with magnetism, but not why there are stable, intelligible laws at all. You're right that improbability alone isn't intention, so I'm not resting on fine tuning. But calling the foundation a necessary mind isn't moving the mystery back. Necessary means no further cause. A brute necessary universe can't explain order or why minds trust reason. A mind can. So God isn't an extra step. He's the ground that makes explanation possible.