Is like saying "IDK" explains it.
It is renaming the confusion. It just pushes the question back another step.
What is the "origin of the universe."
It is "God."
What is "God?"
God is "The answer - to the origin of the universe."
Carl Sagan touched on this "pushing the question one step back."
Calling "god" the answer to a difficult question for which no answer will likely be soon readily available.
And when we ask. "What is the origin of god?"
Christians pull a trump card. They say "God is the thing that does not need explaining or questioning. HE JUST IS; PERIOD."
That is not honest.
If we say "Is it possible the universe JUST WAS forever, with no such thing as a beginning?"
Theists say "That is impossible, everything needs a beginning."
Atheists ask "Then did god have a beginning?
Theists say (trump) "God just is, he has no beginning." or
Theists say "God is the beginning."
In which case it is a semantic switch. Replacing the word "beginning with the word god."
Any number of questions posed by atheists fit this same bill:
"Who created god?"
"Where did god come from?"
"What is the origin of god?"
So while theists find it uncomfortable not to have a solid answer on "where did the universe come from."
Theists are not equally uncomfortable with the question "where did this god guy come from?"
I don't know if you value intellectual consistency.
But I do. And intellectual consistency is what I consider to be "integrity and honesty" in our thinking.
We cannot just create semantic switches to satisfy difficult questions.
We cannot create "special exemptions" in our rationality upon questioning.
That is dishonest.
That is what it means to lack integrity.