it simply misunderstands what many believers think God is or what can even be said about him. In a crucial sense it is the essence of God that he is such that he is sufficient in himself.
-SFB
Surely such a proposition would be self defeating. Because if a god were "sufficient to itself" there wouldn't be a universe. I don't know of any deist that believes this.
However, most deists I've talked to (and the sort I used to be) believe in a "creator god". The difference, of course, between a creator god and a run of the mill deity is that a "creator god" is required to create. Thus, it is NOT "sufficient to itself". Rather, it is dependent upon its creation.
A painter that doesn't paint - isn't a painter. And a creator god that doesn't create - isn't a creator god.
But more importantly SBF - I think you've missed the point of the exercise. It was the creationist who asserted that consciousness requires an explanation. When pressed on how creationism explains consciousness - Old Navy retreated to "God done it" - which doesn't explain it. It just kicks the can down the road. We would still have to explain the consciousness of the God. And further saying "God is sufficient to itself" also doesn't explain it. Because "sufficient to itself" is not an explanation. Rather, it's an obfuscation meant to disguise what is very obviously a case of Special Pleading.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading