Vlad,
First of all,…
No, first of all you claimed to have answered a question already when you’d done no such thing. Stop lying.
Many Antitheists feel they are the only ones who can admit they don't know.
It’s got nothing to do with “antitheists” (a term you routinely use when you actually mean “atheists” by the way). People who do science routinely arrive at a “don’t know” when their knowledge runs out. That’s why people
do science – to find out more.
So therefore…
Non sequitur…
''I don't know what created the universe'' becomes a noble and couragous reply.
No, just honest. You should try the same approach.
Why then is ''I don't know what created God?'' such a no-no.
It isn’t. It’s just that adding the assumption “God” takes you no further than the “don’t know” already arrived at when considering the universe.
That is, "God" explains nothing,
That was the jist of the reply. Therefore the point about a theist response to a favourite atheist objection is addressed.
It’s “gist”, and no it isn’t. The question (yet again) concerns why you think that adding an assumption that itself arrives at the same “don’t know” we’re already at adds anything of explanatory force.
That atheists start to cry and want their mummies when theists say ''I don't know what created God'' but see it as a cause celebre if an atheist says ''I don't know what created the universe'' is special pleading.
No – that’s yet another of your straw men, and the only special pleading would be claiming “it’s magic innit” for god and denying it for the universe.
Have you any idea at all how far out of your depth you are here?
Anything?
