It means that there's no need to question "who" created the universe, since that presupposes that the origins of the universe are found in a deliberate act, which raises the question of the origions of the deliberative entity that did it.
There's absolutely no need to go that route, since that route is infinitely regressive and only religious nuts think there's an answer or hidden meaning to be found in imaginary creators.
The universe exhibits not one shred of evidence for any inteligently directed processes outside of what man himself has created. Inventing a god to explain what occurs is counter productive and inhibits learning.
Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero
I expect you people to use those wrinkled things inside your skulls. If you're not willing to use them, just take it on faith that you can't take the bible on faith.
Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.Because "because" isn't an answer.
You ask: What created God?
Answer: Nothing. He has always been.
You may not understand how that can be, but that you do not understand how that can be in no way precludes it being that.
An answer not understood is the equivalent of "because", and not an answer to anyone mentally older than four.
That's a "because" statement and means nothing. Not only that, it can't be proven, so again, it's merely some dickweed theologian thinking he's smart.