Beautiful. The creation and construction of a straw man for all to behold.
There are of course an infinite number of things which we don't have to consider as existing on a daily basis. These includes grunderfloges, frumfulops and the ever playful drinderbonies. I'm sure you get the idea. All the while not 100% discounting the possibility of such existences. But as Calilasseia is aptly known to say:
If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no critically robust substantive evidence is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing, until said substantive evidence supporting the postulated existence of entity X becomes present. (my bold)
When the skeptic doesn't have a clear definition of X, it is most certainly the responsibility of the people who actually champions the existence of X to provide such a definition. And then to back it up with evidence. Or else we can easily reject it.
That which is asserted without evidence, may safely be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens.
This ridiculous attempt to shirk the burden of proof and actually attempt to shift it to others' shoulders is the typical underhanded, devious and dishonest behavior we find from the intellectually bankrupt.
So what we have here, is theists saying God exists, holding God up as the cause and creator of all that exist without ever providing a shred of evidence to back up such a bold assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sagan. When it is (naturally) rejected as bogus bullshit, we see an immediate shifting of goal post as in "the God you are rejecting is not the CTG, I believe in with all my little heart."
All that is left for the CTG believer is to create a nonsense SC concept in a desperate attempt to divert attention from his own precarious faith head position.
This can of course easily be proved incorrect by actually providing robust and empirical evidence for CTG. I suggest you put up or shut the freck up. Neither of which you will actually do, I for see with my wonderful psychic powers.
Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit