Simple question--does every human accept what you call a creator theory? There seems to be an assumption that all humans know this to be true.
I don't know what every human believes or doesn't believe.
I'm asking about what humans know. I've understood those who share your perspective to say that all humans know either that (1) creation exists or (2) there is a creator. I question whether all humans know this to be true.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that your conclusions are built on your perception and beliefs about the world. There's nothing wrong with that. I certainly have my own conclusions that are built on a similar platform. However, I see no basis for determining that your conclusions represent universal truths. To me, they appear to be merely beliefs.
The literature on knowledge-making often distinguishes between fact on the one hand, and private or communal opinion and knowledge-making on the other. Acceptance is a concept that operates in the realm of opinion. It has no currency in the realm of fact because fact is unchanged by it.
In your first question to me today, you asked about acceptance, and so that is what I responded to.
I do not have to accept the sun. The sun is, no matter how I come to describe it, and even though my descriptions of it have often changed in the past, are variable now, and may also change in the future. The sun structures my experiences on this planet in many ways that are independent of my opinion and descriptions of it. That structuring is also independent of every knowledge-stockpiling textbook on the solar system that has ever been written. At the level of life-cause, all our knowledge of the sun is insignificant. The sun has done what it's done whether we "know" about it or its mechanisms or not.
There are other ways I could relate to the sun that
would be affected by my descriptions of it. Those who worship the sun as a god experience it in different ways from those who lie prone beneath it on beaches, and both groups experience it in different ways from people like me.
Even so, my very life is tied into the activity of the sun; my life here is predicated on there being a sun. The predication comes because, in this universe, carbon-based life like mine operates by certain rules. I can identify several of those rules by observing their operation in the world around me and in my own experience; through that observation I can backpedal to a point in the story where a sun becomes a given. My mental scheme is not fact, however; it is opinion and made-knowledge. The world I observe remains the same whatever my scheme, and so do its rules.
As for creation, the stories about it are many and highly variant, and within our frame those who believe in no beginning at all are a philosophical minority. But as soon as one assumes that the universe "started," then one requires a "starter" which kicked off the processes that are still unfolding. This is the house that Jack built... behind all levels of creation, the creator stands.
All throughout creation without exception, a start requires a starter. At this point, however, questions about the nature of the ultimate stater are premature. Acknowledging a starter that doesn't mean proof of anything theistic. Nor would such proof matter in terms of what the starter already put in motion.