If theists believe that all consciousness needs a designer why do they choose to explain this away by appealing to a bigger mystery instead of dealing with the question. Is it not at any different than claiming magic caused the universe? Why is belief in god based on this argument taken seriously and not criticized.
You know, back when I Was a child I remember having a friend who would always try and one up me when we'd play. He'd always have some excuse for why his character was more or less invincible. The "Everything needs a creator but god" argument is hardly any different from this, and it's an incredible example of ad hoc taken to an absurd extreme.
If you begin with the pretense of using logic through an argument like "everything needs a creator" and then end it with a blatant contradiction along the lines of "except for god" then you clearly reveal that you have no interest in an honest logical discussion. If you cannot prove something, try being a tad more modest than to state that god absolutely and definitely created the universe.
If one can look at this problem in a vacuum:
If a creator MUST have created us, as nothing can exist without having been created, than the obvious question that follows is this - who created the creator?
Anyone who disagrees with me would no doubt answer in something similar to "He's the uncaused cause, he doesn't need a creator"
If you're bringing this line of thinking on to the table, despite the problems it causes by itself, it is self defeating to your point.
I could just as easily say that the universe is the unmade maker, and it never started or ceased to begin.
To which some would reply "Ah, but the universe is matter, while God is not" and again, despite the laundry list of problems this may cause, I would again suggest that it's self defeating.
To claim that only the thing that could exist outside of time is YOUR creator, as opposed to the hundreds of others that could exist with the same amount of supporting evidence (none) isn't fair, and it isn't a justified foundation for an argument.
Is it childish? Not quite, but it's a bad tactic to try and bring to the table, as even if one could bring the idea into play, it still doesn't move the argument along any.
Think about it. We live in a universe of cause and effect. Nothing happens without a cause. Now, you might say, why doesn't this apply to God? It's simple. God, if He does exist, created our universe. He is not subject to it's laws. He exists outside of time and space. This is how He could have no beginning. And how is this any more childish than believing that everything just happened by itself? The finger points both ways.
The argument that there is an indiscernible starting point for any system is pretty much valid throughout all of human history therefore whether it be this Monday beginning at 0:00:00:01 or the beginning of the Renaissance attributed to a year or the beginning of the universe it all falls under the same "bad logic" you propose.
So long as humans produce definitive starting points in time for events despite them being imaginary no definitive point or entity can be denied and circumscribed as "foolish".