Deism challenged (& Theism as collateral damage)

[FallentoReason]

For us to experience the phenomenon of consciousness, we need to be in the presence of time. This follows because for consciousness to work, it needs to actualise; to follow a sequence of actions, such as emotions and thoughts. All this can only happen if it's subject to time. Therefore, if we are experiencing consciousness, we must be in a temporal environment.

Now, the Deistic god (I reason) is one who would fit the category of being a "creative force" and to be creative I'm assuming would take a sort of consciousness where thoughts can freely dwell in order to be able to posses the property of being creative. Therefore, I would argue against a Deistic god as follows:

1) God is a conscious Being
2) A conscious being requires a temporal environment to be conscious
3) If (2) is true, then God requires time to be conscious
4) God is outside of time
C) Therefore, God cannot be a conscious Being

Of course, I say in the title that Theism is collaterally damaged because to be omniscient & omnibenevolent, one must have a conscience. Therefore, this argument certainly refutes any sort of Theistic god that is jealous, merciful, punishing, loving, angry, genocidal etc. because these expressions of character require a conscious.

[Lord Privy Seal]

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

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.

[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.