Deism challenged (& Theism as collateral damage)

[FallentoReason]

Tiny quibble: it looks like you mean to use "consciousness" (the faculty of being conscious) where you're using "conscience" (an intuitive "moral compass").

In my defense, it's getting late over here pretty amateur mistake though hah! Thanks for that.

Onward to your argument:

I think a deist could try to rebut your argument in a couple of ways:

1) Reject Premise #2 by claiming that their deity has a different sort of consciousness, such as a transcendent and/or timeless capital-A Awareness more like the "timeless" or transcendent state some mystics and/or users of entheogens (LSD, DMT, Ayahuasca, etc.) claim to experience.

2) Reject Premise #4, perhaps by claiming that their deity exists within a "higher" sort of time, or is immanent in time while remaining transcendent.

Since the concept of consciousness is not all that easy to nail down, and a deity that is radically different from humans in nature could have a form of consciousness that is also radically different, a deist might be able to worm their way out of your argument. I think that a theist who proposes a social god--one that thinks in language and talks in sequential sentences and listens to prayers and seeks status among humans as its primary goal, and reacts emotionally to human thought and action--is not so easy to pull out of the fire, seeing as those are all inescapably temporal. Furthermore, an alleged deity that ostensibly exhibits such transparently human behavior patterns is arguably incompatible with claims of ineffable mystery.

Interesting thoughts. I'm a Deist myself, so I can agree with you that I could "worm my way out". I'll have to ponder your suggestions tomorrow though, as my mind is starting to fail me.