This guy, [LINK]
2 minute clip.
And this guy, [LINK]
3 minute clip.
Those are not deistic arguments. First with Bill Stein, as Dawkins pointed out, he presumed a "who." He then uses the intelligent design argument to reveal Dawkins' blatant attempt at arguing from ignorance. Dinesh D'Souza, argues if anything, that the [deist rationale] originated with the ancient Hebrews. So it wouldn't be a deist argue more so than a Hebrew argument.Of course, he's wrong, as intelligent design can be traced as far back as the ancient Sumerians.
Regardless of its origin and historical context, it remains an argument that supports DEISM exclusively.
No, the origin does matter. Your accepting the intelligent design rationale for the deistic premise doesn't make intelligent design exclusively deistic.
That's literally the ONLY claim DEISM makes.
Deism posits a metaphysically transient entity with which man can neither interact nor perceive. Its only function, in a sense, was to initiate. It remains, according to Deists, a "non-interventionist."
Easy: if "God" is this metaphysically transient entity with which man can neither interact nor perceive, then how is it that they can render conclusions about the characteristics and functions of said God? Even if one were to simply extend the rationale of "everything must follow logic," this metaphysical entity would also have conform to this rationale. Hence, God, too, is confined to logic. Since man has the capacity for logic, man would also have to capacity to perceive God. And Deism argues that God cannot be perceived, acknowledged, etc.
As for Atheism, it posits that no God exist or that God does not exist. Now if one is going to take the route that Atheism is merely a "non-belief," than it's a non-belief with no substantial premise. If one can neither verify nor falsify the existence of God, then what is the basis of the non-belief? God's existence notwithstanding, atheists do not value arguments for God's existence. And this expressed often through emotion, not reason.
Atheism is simply "without belief in god(s)". NOT "there is/are no god(s)". And probably "your particular god(s) is/are logically incoherent".
If Atheism operated on its semantic description, it would be apathy or indifference. And regardless of your definitions, Atheism does posit that there are no Gods. It's the premise of your non belief; thus you saw fit to include "logically incoherent" which is tantamount to positing that God cannot "logically" exist.
DEISM is simply "any god(s) that is/are indistinguishable from no-god(s) is/are just as likely as no-god(s)".
That's not how they argue it, but your reduction does point out how nonsensical their rationale is. It's a sophistic attempt by Deists to conflate divinity with the Big Bang Theory.
Show me one piece of evidence, which cannot be applied to any other deity, to prove the existence of a particular god of your choosing (assume that deism is proven without a shadow of a doubt).
Why? Did I make the argument that there's "one piece of evidence"? Or did you assert "the reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence"? You do not reconcile the burden of your assertion by placing the referendum on your opponent to falsify your argument. You posited the assertion; it's you who must support it. Once again, please elaborate.
They presume little g god, prime mover. Not Supreme Being necessarily, that seems to me imbued with other properties that aren't necessary, like supremacy, for the proposition of starting the universe. But now we're both arguing distinction without difference, I think.
I suppose. Contextually, Deism was a response to Western monotheistic religion, namely Christianity and Judaism. While God isn't "necessary," God is implicit.