Deism for non-believers

[FallentoReason]

Your "plausible god" that is a creator is an equally material claim with absolutely no evidence as well, so wouldn't it also be a "false claim" by your own metrics?

That's why I was trying to clarify with you if you saw creation as contradictory with reality. Apparently you do? Here I'm assuming that the material claim is the act of creating matter.

Let me be clear, there is no 80 foot bird that we know of, just as there are no actual gods that we know of...but there are birds.........fewer unjustified assertions.

Thanks for clarifying. I was starting to get a little lost with this bird.

Ok, agreed, fewer unjustified assertions. But is that meaningful in any way? It seems like an irrelevant tangent saying that a 'creator bird' is more plausible, because I don't think it is anyways (seeing as we can observe the natural world and cannot find this bird). Unless you've been implying this whole time that the bird is outside of space and time like a god would be?

If this god has to be a god that doesn't intervene then it would preclude a creator god, which had to intervene for our universe to go from "not there" to "there".

Ok, so you do see the act of creation as contradicting with reality. To what degree does it actually contradict? Can it be said that there actually is a way of determining where matter came from?

This is going on the assumption that god was necessary. If we drop that assumptiuon and state that perhaps the universe could have arose by other means but that in this specific instance goddidit we would be at a loss to determine the difference between a universe "by other means" and a universe "goddidit", making it an un-falsifiable proposition (in addition to being an argument for which you are unable to assign any measure of truth to, while still being less plausible than my bird- which for some reason you think is rubbish even though this "plausible god" has escaped that axe.....all the while contradicting your insistence for a god that does not intervene).

Looks like I posted before you finished editing.

I think you have shown that we can actually go even further down the scale. I agree with the bolded, and I think this means that from here we can actually establish what this extreme of the scale could 'look' like. This "other means" that you speak of could possibly be The Beginning. Everything that has been, is, or could ever be came from this singularity that I'm calling The Beginning. Maybe this 'instance/event/source' could be a part of the scale and has the bare minimum needed to be included in the scale -- 'It' was responsible for what has become.

Our plausible gods so far in comparison have described a 'person' almost, but this definition of a god is actually the definition itself. Therefore it cannot have any godly attributes like the ones that we're all so used to, but instead 'it' (the singularity/instance/event/source) was responsible for all that is. Nothing more, nothing less.