Why not deism?

[Inqwizitor]

The universe itself is sufficient evidence of something not-universe. Or at least not this universe. As all arguments do, this rests on some assumptions, such as the principle of sufficient reason and a rejection of "brute fact" as a satisfactory explanation.

All I can see is, the universe is evidence that the universe exists. Not sure how one would get to something 'not-universe' existing? And even if this 'not-universe' exists, how would one even begin to speculate that it is an agent, that could be defined as a god?

As far as I can tell, PSR is nothing more than an attempt to come up with some rational sounding argument, to get around the discomfort humans have in not having an answer. And how does PSR get around being applied to the god itself? If the universe conforms to PSR, why doesn't the god?

Let's agree not to use the word "god" because it's too loaded with connotations attached to religion. This is probably another problem with deism: it purports to be based on reason and philosophy alone; but it's derived from a word for god (Latin, deus — theism uses the Greek-sounding spelling from "theos").

Far better philosophers than I (I only have an undergraduate level in it) can articulate the PSR more comprehensively, but the idea is that if reality is rationally consistent, then the ground (in the ontological sense) of existence must be metaphysically necessary. Since the the physical universe we are in is metaphysically contingent (it could be physically otherwise) it is not metaphysically necessary in and of itself. There must be something else that is logically possible other than our physical universe.

---

"why is there something rather than nothing" is an improper question.  As soon as you offer a reason you are talking about existence.  You can't explain existence by pointing to something that exists.  You'd have to step outside of existence to look for an explanation.  But if something doesn't exist then it can't explain anything.  

If an answer to the question of why anything exists is the basis for your belief, then you're in trouble. You don't get down to an ontological principle by starting with an error.

I'm not sure if I understand you here. Is this the "existence precedes essence" axiom? I think when we get down to what is metaphysically necessary, existence and essence must be the same thing.

---

I suppose it's the same way that plenty of people use the term 'agnostic' now. While the consequences are now socioeconomic and not, in the vast majority of cases, physically fatal, and the stakes are much lower, I suspect plenty of people still hold the same attitude.

They hope to avoid conflict or damage to their reputation by identifying themselves agnostics rather than atheists, even if they do technically fit the definition of atheist. If you subscribe to agnostic atheist versus gnostic atheist paradigm, then technically, everyone on Earth is an agnostic. However, language in common usage often differs from technical definitions, and people commonly use the term agnostic to describe a sort of 'less severe' form of atheism, so to speak.

Fence-sitting has its benefits, I suppose.

I agree that "agnostic" is the most agreeable position to situate oneself when it comes to religion. It depends on where you live and who you associate with, though; for me to admit that I'm Catholic can (and has) cost my reputation with many people. I never deny it, though.

For someone who simply lacks faith, though, atheism is the more accurate term. Agnostic refers more properly to what we can know, not what we believe in. For example, the orthodox Catholic teaching is agnostic when it comes to anything supernatural. It is beyond our ability to know.