Deism for non-believers

[FallentoReason]

Have you witnessed any cosmos creation recently? Why have you ruled out intervention but ruled in creation, they would seem to fall under the same axe, to me.

Actually yes, I have. Before creation there was nothing, after there was something, we proposes this as an act of a god, therefore it intervened in the continued state of nothingness.

Ok, there you go. You've implicitly identified that creation was an act of intervention in the immaterial realm. So for me that doesn't count as intervening in the real world.

Aren't we arguing about a scale which is completely disconnected in every way to reality? I do recall you mentioning a few posts back that this was precisely the trouble with the scale as it applied to compelling someone to believe in a plausible god.

No, we're talking a scale that rules out gods that contradict reality. I mentioned in the OP that we were left with no other choice but to believe in a non-contradictory god. But we've already been through that. Or did you mean I said something else?

No assumption is required, you can see the totality of both lines, and they do not intersect. I don't need to check into infinity because they are not infinitely long. A line of known length, and an infinitely long line are vastly different things (yuk yuk yuk). Parallel lines need not be infinitely long even if there were (at least in concept) infinitely long parallel lines.

\
/

Parallel lines. Tell me what they are so that I can understand why mine aren't parallel. I can see the totality of both lines and they're not intersecting, so I take it they're parallel to you as well.

Sorry to come in late. The deist creator god is the least implausible of all the proposed creator gods I have heard of, but it is still implausible

Beeecaaause...?

See, there is your whole problem here in a nutshell. Like any "good" theist (or "deist" or whatever for the arrogantly pedantic), you approach the problem thus:

A) X must be true, by fiat.

B) What specious arguments, assertions, and other horseshit can I try to float to support A?

C) Post B ad nauseum.

Then stop me at step B and show me why I'm wrong.

In the same way as we can know the orbit pf Pluto without ever observing the path or the angles at which it spins, we can know if two lines would be truly parallel. Use math to determine whether the set that you have in reality matches the hypothetical ideal- then you can know whether or not the physical interpretation of "parallel" matches.

Ah, but I would like to remind you that:

[concepts] cannot be shown directly in reality, just like every single other concept that has ever existed.

All you will ever get in reality is an approximation to the concept. It's actually rather trivial to use all the power you posses to try and get the most perfect parallel lines drawn when you could equally just dash the paper twice and tell me both pairs are parallel lines. The outcome will be the same... I will be "seeing" parallel lines because the concept exists in my head and I'm relating your representations to that concept.