No, I think it´s well established and it would be clear to anyone reading our interactions that you are much more knowledgable about this topics than I am. So this actually makes these interactions particularly challenging because you are not really mistaken, you are just arguing different things. And you don´t have to be an expert to point that out. I say A and you say "well, B is nonsense because C". That is true, but B was never my point.

Let me elaborate. First, " [y]et, with no research, experimentation, or peer review -- not whiff of pseudoscience at all, lol". You are completly right, but no one is claiming that deism is a scientific model that we should adopt. Proving how deism fails to fulfill what is required of an acceptable scientific model is pointless, because that´s neither what it is trying to be, nor what I was claiming. My submission is that OP´s deism isn´t fundamentally anti-scientific and that is true. Failing to meet the stringet requirements of a scientific theory doesn´t make something, ipso facto, anti-scientific.

Second, "[a] model has qualities and properties, as do all other natural phenomena. How would ANY property-less thing, hypothetical or otherwise, be phenomenologically assessed?" Once again, you are right but once again that´s not my point. Deism, as I understand it, doesn´t claim that God is property-less, just that we don´t know what those properties are and that the way to find out is not religion but observation and reason.

That actually leads nicely into the third point. "Dark matter and dark energy are both phenomenologically defined -- that is, they are stated to have properties and qualities. Those properties were, in fact, extant before the labels applied to them along with theories to explain the phenomena. They are why the labels came about -- because physicists were trying to understand their observations". You are, as usual, right, but here´s the thing: I know that, that´s not news to me. I never claimed that dark matter and energy where this mystical concepts that physicists pulled out of nowhere, just that they are these things we believe to exist and know nothing about their qualities, and that is true.

We observe weird behaviour in gravity and the expansion of the universe? Dark matter and energy is our answer, but we don´t know exactly what they are or how they function. Well, likewise, there´s no answer as to how the Big Bang came to be? Some people argue a supreme entity could be the answer, but they don´t know what it is or how it functions.

Now, I´m well aware that it isn´t a perfect analogy. It is completly different to create a hypothesis with the math to back it up, but it doesn´t have to be. The point is not that deism is just as valid as our scientifc models, just that it isn´t necessarily anti-scientific to believe in the existence of something whose qualities we ignore.

Also, regarding other assumptions. I never insinuated that you don´t have a scientific background, it was a poor attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. I neither care nor does it actually matter if you do. Likewise, of course it is evident that I dont´t have a background in science. I neither claimed I did, nor is it a prerequisite for my claims to be valid.