Deism for non-believers

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok, I understand now what is it you're getting at. I don't see how it's absurd that arbitrary qualities like species and size can get accepted into the set. I just think it's trivial because the scale is merely reflecting 'non-physical' attributes. It's kind of like describing someone and saying e.g. they're smart as opposed to describing material properties like the colour of their hair. So, by all means, you can insert gods that have a certain shape and size, but I don't see it as useful or damaging to the scale's functionality.

With creation, let's get some stuff clear. So you and I definitely see it as impossible for a god to intervene. Now, you say the act of creation itself is in a way intervening, but creation doesn't contradict with reality. So when you say it doesn't contradict with reality I take it you mean some "other means" that was responsible for the universe wouldn't contradict reality? Now, on the topic of creation being intervention, I don't think it could be called intervention. Prior to creation there is nothing to intervene in. After creation, matter exists for you to intervene with but, as we agreed, no plausible god does intervene.

Oh, p.s. I responded to the rest of your other post which you were editing as I finished replying to it.

What is damaging to the scale is not that I can insert size or shape, but that I can insert absurdity and return a result that is more plausible than your plausible god. If your position is that some creator god on this scale is plausible and therefore rational to believe in then you would have to concede that my bird or strawberry shortcake trumps any of these potential plausible gods by sheer weight of parsimony. The only question that remains is why you don't believe in my creator bird or my creator shortcake. Or, just maybe, your scale isn't as useful as you initially thought (and as I've mentioned before, that's regardless of whether or not this scale can be said to have any correlation to factuality.......I mean ffs, a scale that cant be connected to existence and also returns divine shortcake as a plausibility?).

No, we don't see it as impossible. I see it as un-evidenced, I have no idea how you see it because you seem to have conflicting narratives about this plausible god. It is intervention in that before creation "nothing exists" and after creation "something exists" That this something is material is icing on the cake for me, because again, it is theoretically falsifiable (unless you propose the possibility of "others means" as a convenient excuse for this creative agents "hidden-ness" which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Pre-empting the sort of bullshit that is inevitable once this line of argumentation is taken up.)

Lets's see if I can distill my problems with your scale down to a single line of criticism. You could use this scale as a tool to create a theoretically unfalsifiable proposition, and in fact it seems that you have designed this scale to be useful for nothing else(you haven't managed to do that yet but we're going to take a trip into the future where you have). If you were to succeed in doing this you would merely be demonstrating that such a thing as an unfalsifiable proposition exists -which is something that we already understand-. Your unfalsifiable proposition is not a god, it is an unfalsifiable proposition. You are not creating plausible gods, you are creating plausible unfalsifiable propositions. This might help to explain why remarks like "mental masturbation" have been leveled at your posts.