A deist, Dio, is a theist at one extreme end of the spectrum between close concern with individuals to arbirary and impersonal. There is no special merit and it's something you've learned from others, which seems to you to indicate intellectuality.
Your neverending need to attempt to explain (rather like mansplaining) things because you assume only you understand them is one of the clearest signs of your self-centeredness.
I'm not even going to dignify it, other than to say that I am a Deist only at the most fundamental level. That is, creation, once set in motion, ethically cannot be touched/interfered with. As for your subjective definition, I think some Googling or ChapGPT research is in order.
Now perhaps the both of you could stop trying to break the forum guidelines just because you dislike me sooo intensely. It's unethical and immoral, ergo hypocritical.
Lol, deism is inconsistent with your entire attitude throughout this conversation. Deism is also totally consistent with what I've said in this thread, same is true for Optimissed... I don't see how you can claim to be a deist and still be talking like you have been. Can you elaborate on your beliefs a bit further please, especially as they pertain to the scientific and testable claims I've made? Because they make no sense to me.
Btw - check this out while you're at it
Helping Man Magically Win the Lottery: Street Magic | David Blaine - YouTube
Not to anyone observant enough. Organized religion is not the same as basic belief in a creator.
If you made any scientifically testable claims, then I guess I must have missed them. I did see you namedropping some other people's work, but I am not inclined to take your guidance on who to dig into, for obvious reasons.
I am not going to watch junk you like from YouTube. Far too much of that in the science threads already.