Deism for non-believers

[FallentoReason]

I've decided against even arguing it, as you have a definition for intervention that differs from my own, and since it's just a thought exercise word games would only serve to draw it out. What I am suggesting is that this creative act may be untenable for the very same reasons that interventions (by your definition) are untenable (to you). I wouldn't know for certain though. I've asked a couple of times why intervention rules a god out for you (as a plausible god).

I rule out intervention because I simply haven't seen it happen. Everything in the natural world seems to be in its place all the time.

I take it you don't agree with why I see creation as not intervention? I don't think you've exactly given me your thoughts on my explanation.

It requires the creator attribute for you, but the scale doesn't demand it in and of itself, that's just an attribute that you have given to a plausible god, is it not? I've already made mention of this several times. I think that the scale you've proposed doesn't work due to divine strawberry shortcake being more plausible than any plausible god due to parsimony.

I think it does need the creator attribute, otherwise what would we be arguing for? The scale would be completely disconnected in every way to reality as creation is the one tangible thing between reality and an ideal god. Maybe for the scale to work we need to assume these gods are something seperate from mere objects like cake. Also, a cake has design. Not just any design, but a design by us. So it can't be that it gave rise to what designed it if it's the creator of the universe.

-- There are your lines (these lines have a set length, btw, in many different ways, and you can be assured that they are parallel, defying your proclamations of what is or is not quite literally impossible).
--

Here is your circle.

Concepts are not visible things.........

"You can show me how 4 can be used to describe something, like rocks in an arbitrary position that then are identified as 'four rocks'," which is precisely what "4" is..............I could also show you what "adventurous" is, even though "adventurous" itself is just a concept, it is a descriptive concept, and so is "4".

But what makes you say they are parallel? You are assuming they won't ever intersect somewhere along infinity. Or have you checked?

Blocky pixels definitely cannot make a circle. You'd get a way better approximation by drawing it by hand. Even then it's a crude approximation to a concept that can't be shown in reality (yes, I agree with you. Concepts aren't visible).

I agree now that numbers are a way of describing groups of things.

---

So it really doesn't do anything of value at all, does it? A scale that measures the number of ghosts holding blue-flaming candles has as much use as a scale measuring plausible gods, in that both are mere conjecture.

I guess it's more of a thought experiment which simply lets you explore further what a god might be like.

I would like to defer to Rhythm here, because he had answered this (mostly) by the time I got around to posting again.
4 as a number is a concept and cannot be shown directly in reality, just like every single other concept that has ever existed. We can only show the physical representation of those concepts.
Mathematics is necessarily based on the obervable universe, because it is a descriptive function of the universe rather than a prescriptive. That is to say, it functions off of the observable and is subject to change.
That said, every single mathematical concept has some use in the gauging of reality. Infinites have uses in macro calculations despite their inoperability in the physical universe.

Clearly maths does have applications in the real world even if the concepts aren't proven or shown to actually exist.

Oh, and by the way, I want to make it very, very clear that parallel lines are not some axiom of geometry. They are very observeable in reality, and you don't need infinite lengths to have two lines that would never intersect.

Where can I observe them? How can you know that they are indeed parallel? Please elaborate.