An indivudal right whose authority supersedes that of the state.
First, there are two structures to "rights", privileges & protections.
No, right which is a 'privilege' can be "god given".
So, if say. A court recognizes you have the "right to food, water and safe shelter". That is a privilege. It is extends from the state to those it deems:
One could attempt to apply as a protection, say by putting restrictions on prosecution where in the intention is to obtain this basic need, but it wouldn't work. Even if the courts would let off bread thieves or squatters. It is inevitable in of absence of a remedy in the courts. People will feel compelled to enforce natural justice. This may seem subjective, and to some extend it is…but there are foundational ideas at play here.
Of course, this is rarely an issue as such rights are in fact viewed as privileges, wherein this is simple. The state has a legal obligation to provide these basic needs to it citizenry. This creates no further legal issues. If people don't like it, they can reform it.
Kings, governors, administration who fail their obligation will face penalty or have their authority removed.
A modern example of such a privilege right is the right to vote. Keeping in mind, such a right derives itself from more foundational god given rights such as that of personal liberty/agency. One can be without suffrage and still an agent of their own actions….
Now, protective right subtlety is where this concept gets teeth.
Let contrast two rights, one "god given" and one "state given".
"Right to healthcare" - state given
"Right to free speech" - god given
First, both are not absolute. There is some speech that will be criminal - say, ordering the murder of another. There will always be a limit on healthcare - if a doctor request you seek different treatment. How those limits are derived though are important.
Where as healthcare requires the action of the state/community/other. Free speech does not. So although both are legislatively limited and administered by the state, they are not equal. Free speech is god given, and it's thus is the just responsibility of the state not to infringe; lest 'the people' have the just right to nullify/overthrow it for tyranny. Contrast this too 'right to healthcare' which although can be in many contexts seem protective as there is no real victim, is still is at the complete discretion of other particpating parties. There is no authority outside that which is given. It is by nature still a legal privilege.
This was important, as of the founding of the united states, as the revolutionary war was justified as a just war in being for the recognition and protection of these natural rights against legal and lawful authority(you may notice we adopted much English law). You may imagine, such an honour need be highly restrictive lest America would be fighting a revolution every other year.
What "rights" are "god given"?
There are lots. Rooted in the idea of personal agency. Where can others/government justly infringe on our natural ability to be an individual?
You see traditionally, one's 'rights' derived from their family(everything is privilege). Not their individual nature. State privileges were earned honours for some families and not others...you were meaningless, family honor was justice.
As gods become God, and Christian universalism overtook tribal idenity: so came the radical idea that since all authority came from a single God, and that God saw all as equal regardless of family/creed: any person could be 'privileged' indeed these differences we observe were entirely manmade. So in was this language born to counter the legal arguments of the 'divine right of kings' of which it wresled in its early days.
And sure call "God-given rights", natural rights / negative rights…it doesn't really matter.
It's about the core principle of where the authority of the state is limited on the individual.
Of course, calling them natural rights. You ignore it is actually more natural to do it by family/group(realpoltik, to the strong go the spoils), but whatever…
Also, who are they given to? Is anyone left out from these rights?
In concept everyone. It was a new radical concept from very recent human history though, so obviously the norms of traditional privileges of families seem too important to just throw away -- but with time we've seen the transformation where now very few have serious violation of their god-given rights in the west. That said, such progress has been losing ground for years as 'identity-group-rights' are now growing and the concept of god-given individual rights fading.
In a world of 'identity-group-rights' there is no such thing as God-given rights as there is no presumption of individual agency. Just as it was before, you may be a woman but 'womens right' is more important.