Deism for non-believers

[Angrboda]

I see you didn't answer my question about Shaktism. The problems of the past alludes to the fact that no matter what attributes we posit, some smartass has a proof somewhere showing that attribute as being a problem. The only way out of that box is to posit a god with no tangible attributes, but then why call that god? Why not just, 'existence'? Or reality? What, in your view, is the minimum attribute that a god must have in order to qualify as a god, as opposed to 'nature' or some other non-god existential quantity.

The NFL theorem is applicable because it demonstrates that when you average the net moment over a purely random set of phase spaces, the net moment is zero. Likewise, if your set of Gods is truly only constrained by the possible, you have a net average of all characteristics being zero (0) -- thus the result of following the logic of possibility in determining the likely characteristic of a Deist god constructed this way is that the probability of this god having any specific attribute is zero (0); it's as described impressionistically above, if you let go of ALL IDEAS from your experience, the most probable god is a cipher, having no qualities which differentiate it from it not existing. The reason you are able to shape this Deist god in the way you are, imho, is because you're using hidden assumptions, assumptions based on what has been said or thought about god before, and not really opening yourself up to the truly possible. YMMV.