This criticism is as good as "whoever smelled it dealt it". It sounds like a refutal, but only at the surface level.if God created the universe, then who created God?
Before I go into why, assume for a moment that the logic of that question is flawless. Then it will end up disproving any explanation for the universe. If you take the position that all matter comes from the expanding after the big bang, then what created the matter? If you then answer it with "the matter was always there", then how could one not make the same claim about god, that he was always there?
But the simpler dissection of the question is that there was no claim that everything had to be created and therefor it isn't a refutal. What is it called, the paradox of the stone? Can god create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it?
It's resolved the same way as "what happens if an immovable object meets an irrestitable force?". And the answer is that any universe that has an immovable object can't have an irresistable force and vice versa. Like a scientist, we try to identify natural laws accurately and when we find something that is an irresistable force and we find something that is an immovable object, we will find that one of the two was wrongly labelled/identified when you put them together.
Similarly if you say there is such a thing as god (implied: christian omnipotent god), then you say also that there is no limit to what he is capable off, and therefor there could not be a stone that he can't lift. If you say that there could be a stone he can't lift, you can't conceptualise him as an omnipotent god.
To get back to the original question, the claim of a christian omnipotent god does not include the claim that god is created, so the demand to know who or what created him is not a refutal.
Though in practise it's probably a good question to get people to sperg out as they try to answer things that literally nobody knows.
Besides that, I thought the fundamental questions you asked were interesting.
I think if you look at it from inside a moral framework of religion (of at least the abrahamic faiths), at least one more common question should be added: why does god allow bad things to happen to good people?
How does using a different word for the same thing solve the problem?Fuck science. Fuck religion. They're both changeable dogmatic horseshit. Engineering and spirituality for the win. Their processes either work or they don't.