Theism = Religion (Christianity, Islam... etc)
Anti-theism = Anti-religion
Pantheism = This is very similar to deism but they don't answer with a god to the questioning of the origin of the dimensions (I feel the origins of the universe has been described quite thoroughly through quantum physics and the 10-dimensional theory)

Why is it that theists are in a continuous retreat when debating with an anti-theist, but once they fall back into the realm of pantheism or deism they are untouchable and suddenly with that doubt they can reclaim all their lost arguments?

Well quite simply, there is no rational explanation for this. It's childish. It's like arguing that pi is 3.14..., and then the opposition insist that since pi hasn't been defined completely, then they can't be certain that it starts with 3.14.

I have no problems with a world where people believe in some form of creator, as long as they don't attempt to define that creator. For the following section, a creator could be like a theistic god or a light switch.

Since the universe has been observed to be a closed system, and that it's the fourth dimension, then we can assume the following. The creator of the universe would have to originally exist in the third dimension, which lacks time, and without time there is no progress. Even if it were possible, which it is not, the creator would be unable to interact with anything or anyone in the universe, and that still nullifies theism. Ultimately, a creator would have to exist outside the realms of our current understanding of the dimensions, but that doesn't justify theism either. Such a creator could be explained by a rather scientific process, which is more pantheistic in its approach, rather then it being a god by theistic or deistic standards.

If one argues that the universe is ordered and structured, then one is to retort that their statement is completely false. If our understanding of physics was different, like if lower mass had a higher gravitational pull, then would we know that it was irrational? It is very rational to assume that a universe that abides by laws stated in the previous sentence would be unable to sustain our definition of life. In addition, at the very beginning of the universe, moments before the big bang, it had been completely chaotic, and it still is. It does have some rather nifty laws which govern it, but the 10-dimensional theory suggests that there are an infinite number of fourth-dimensions, with each system having an infinite amount of probabilities to choose as its starting point.

In conclusion, such a creator is outside the realms of our dimensions, and may escape all scientific reasoning. However, one is left with the obvious problem that such a creator needs to be created as well, and so forth. Then this leads me to my final point and is addressed by Professor Dawkins on a regular basis: Every system, the universe, the dimensions, life, etc... all originate with complete simplicity and become more complex when time goes on, but a creator would unquestionably be more complex then the system it designed or triggered, in this case, the dimensions.