That is because the question is a foolish one as it entirely misses the point of the theistic answer.

The usual form of the theistic premise in arguments like this is "whatever comes into being must have a cause for its' existence" or "whatever begins to exist must have a cause" or something of the like. Usually such arguments seek to point out to the necessity of an uncreated creator.
That would mean that the counter-argument of "what created the uncreated creator?" fails as they'd suppose that the posited creator-being would have come into being, or that it'd have begun to exist - both of which would make the creator a contingent and thus a non-necessary being.

If the creator-being is shown to be necessary and necessarily uncreated then to ask of its' origins is to ask meaningless question.

Ok. I agree with the bolded part, but I interpret it as meaning that a creator-being is a paradox with the knowledge we currently have.

If, through whatever means, we find out who/what created the universe, this information will be completely pointless if we cannot also prove that this creator is uncreated. Since science nor philosophy have even come close to ever assessing this property about anything, I'm not holding my breath for that. It may happen, but it is completely foolish for anyone to claim that they already know this about whoever they believe to be the creator.

Hence, back to why I dislike theists: They simply state that the universe's creator is a god who is uncreated. And through stating this assumption, they deny the possibility that it is incorrect.

This post was edited by Leevee on Mar 26 2017 02:09pm

I believe in bacon

Can't be true. If you believe in Bacon, then you would be agreeing with me.

I believe you are gay

Sorry to disappoint you. But I'm sure you'll find a nice young man somewhere.

The question I have is, why assume that the universe is not necessary? That's the premise I've never seen a convincing defense of, that the universe is contingent and came into being.

Postulating a necessary, eternal God as the creator of the universe does not seem to explain anything that isn't equally well explained by postulating the universe as necessary and eternal, while simultaneously being more convoluted and failing Occam's razor.

That's exactly why I dislike cosmological arguments of that type (Kalam). I guess that one could justify such arguments if one was to subscribe some version of the principle of sufficient reason or the likes, or if one is of the opinion that we can't consider the existence of the world a brute fact.

I don't think that the universe can be thought of as something that exists out of necessity. Or at least I'm yet to hear why its' existence should be considered necessary.

This post was edited by Gastly on Mar 27 2017 01:23pm

Simply because that's the best and simplest explanation for its existence, rather than it being contingent and some additional Being being necessary as its cause. If there is no reason to assume the universe isn't necessary, then it's the simplest and most satisfactory explanation for its existence.