Theists just can't avoid sounding like the idiots they are, no matter what they say about Gawd.
No Atheist that I've ever meet or read has said this. I think you made it up.
Precisely so. When the standard (religious) definition of god as the omni-everything creator of the universe fails to gain traction, those who want to insist on god's existence attempt to branch the discussion out by equating other things to god, such as infinity or the totality of existence. All this indicates is their monomaniacal devotion to a concept which their indoctrination insists must exist, while mandating that inclusion of their particular brand of deity in one form or another remains mandatory.
Seems to me this is more like a deist's stance rather than a theist one. One of their more lazy arguments as well. It says nothing in support of the existence of god. Like Loren says, it is almost sloganish. Rah rah for the god side as the theists glom on to this empty deist concept.
It is exactly that - moving the goalposts. If they can't assert their god directly, they assert that SOME god must exist, then assume by inference that it must be THEIR god. The argument is about as supportable as a screen door in a submarine.
More or less, yeah. That's another classic, theistic trope, jumping back and forth between a deistic god and a theistic god, hoping no one notices. William Lane Craig does this nonstop.
"Okay, so now that I've demonstrated that a god created the universe, you have to accept that Jesus died on the cross for you."
Whoah. Whoah whoah whoah whoah whoah. You've got a hell of a lot more work to do, before you get to anything of the sort.
The first cause argument doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort, without a massive argument from ignorance on the end ... and it doesn't even do that much, because at least one of the premises is challenge-able, in every construction of the argument that I've ever seen.
Ever seen Frank Turek in action? He doesn't even bother to make the deist/theist distinction at all. He dabbles (and dribbles) in scientific language and is genuinely unaware how disingenuous he is. He is a true believer who tries to win arguments by the forcefulness of his delivery. For entertainment purposes I'd like to see Lawrence Krauss have a go at him. He is a cartoon caricature of WLC.
I read I don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, so I got at least a sampling. It's impossible to tell what is him and what is Norman Geisler. They're both dishonest douche bags, though, and the entire book is just one massive straw-man argument.
Their is a Hitchens/Turek debate on you tube. A rare time where I've seen Hitch show a genuine dislike and contempt for a sparing partner.
Yeah, I keep meaning to watch more of Hitchens's debates. It's just so painful, sitting through the theistic side, listening to a grown man make arguments that I realized were stupid when I was 12.
Oooooo, Krauss v Turek?!? Lawrence EVISCERATED WLC in Australia not that long ago. What would happen to Turek at Krauss' hands might not be fit for little children to watch! Then, too, Sam Harris handed Billy-boy his ass at Notre Dame a few years ago, too.
What theist equates infinity with God?
There's a William Lane Craig argument for the existence of God:
1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
Try unpacking that :) What happens to it in the context of the Big Bang theory?