If there were a God, that's the way I'd prefer it.

No, wrong. It's just you, like I, don't understand any of it. And how could you?
BUT, based on your own observations and a priori deduction, it's the only thing which makes sense.
'God' obviously is impersonal and doesn't intervene. Doesn't answer prayers. Doesn't favor the good over the evil at any given moment. Etc.
BUT, it IS an Explanation for existence, isn't it? Whether or not that explanation is understandable is beside the point.
Deism simply postulates 'god' exists.
NEO-deism (me) goes one step further and negates the word, DEITY. It does not identify 'god' as any specific thing, whether it be an entity or a cup of custard. It merely suggests 'it' exists.
Not very satisfying, is it? It's not supposed to be. It's not trying to be.
Personally, I don't see the difference among the terms, 'deism,' Agnosticism, pantheism, even ignosticism.
The only way we can get an inkling of 'god' is through investigation of what we can empirically observe via our five senses directly (and through instrumentation) and 'a priori' through deductive thought. This to me indicates it's existence, but doesn't 'prove' anything.
The main point is, 'god' is at present unknowable. Maybe it's essence will one day be discovered. In fact I personally am convinced. But for now, enjoy the show.

@Storm1752. God at present is unknowable b/c god does not exist in any sense. When you give some credible scientific objective evidence to the contrary then I will alter my position. Until then, it's just more magical thinking.

@Jetty you're welcome.

I think it's more of a transitional period. It helps take the shock out of the coming realization, and eases one's acceptance. In that respect it's kind of a cop out.

Of course, I could be totally wrong because I don't remember ever having believed.

Just because atheists insist on saying things like that over and over again doesn't make it true.
To the contrary, it displays lazy thinking bordering on willfull ignorance.
They say the same thing about Agnosticism.
Actually, atheism is much more closely related to theism, the two being belief systems based on nothing more than faith in their respective positions.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, shares with atheism only a repugnance for organized religion. Many agnostics, though, also find ATHEISM repugnant.
Some atheists just don't get it.
It's like the uneasy relationship between Judaism and Christianity: Christians think themselves closely related theologically to Jews; most Jews think Christians' beliefs laughable: a "Messiah" who doesn't 'save' anything or anybody and dies on a cross? What nonsense!
I'm personally an 'agnostic neo-deist.'The two terms are compatible in a sense. My research has indicated (to me) strong circumstantial EVIDENCE reality is not confined to the five senses. There is more, arguably.
For instance, I've not personally seen or been abducted by extraterrestials, but I think it very likely (not certain) they not only exist but are a presence on our planet.
Similarly, there are strong indication something which could be defined as 'god' exists, but for now it can't be known for sure, so one has no choice but to take an agnostic stance.
Some people call themselves 'agnostic atheists,' which is a contradiction in terms. You're either one or the other but it's IMPOSSIBLE to be both. Maybe a 'weak' atheist as opposed to a 'strong' atheist, but that has nothing to do with Agnosticism whatsoever.
NEO-deism is merely an opinion something ineffable probably exists which explains everything. The fact we don't know what that is, is entirely beside the point.

@Storm1752 How do you consider atheism a belief "system" based on the absence of evidence I don't believe, but on the other hand I don't know; so I'm an agnostic as well.

The atheist you describe is a straw man built on the false assumption that atheism is based on faith. I have no faith in atheism, it is simply my position. Without evidence, I don't create an elaborate fairy tale to explain existence. It's okay to withhold judgment until you have evidence.

If I hear a noise when I'm alone, I don't call Ghostbusters. When I see cardinals, I don't think they're messages from dead family members. Likewise I cannot accept any of the concepts that humans have invented to avoid accepting their mortality.

The difference between a faith based belief system and atheism, which isn't a faith or any system, is that atheism could be easily debunked with actual, verifiable proof. The faithful constantly rationalize away any contradictory evidence. On the subject of god, the burden of proof rests on the believers. You're equivalence argument is like saying that since there's no evidence that fairies do not exist, believing in them is as valid as not believing. I don't need faith to not believe in fairies.

@Storm1752 Wow. Just wow.

Oh, and you pretend to KNOW better, right? That you have absolute knowledge on the matter?
What you have, my friend, is an OPINION based on nothing more than the 'knowledge' your average theist has for his or her position.
Your five senses? Do you believe there's something called an 'atom?' Why? You can't see it, feel it, smell it, hear it, or in any other way detect it.
Someone told you so? You've read about them? Are you really that gullible?

@Storm1752 Err, no I actually have a Doctorate in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions plus 2 other PhD's in Psychology and Languages such as Latin, Ancient Greek, Aramaic plus Bachelors Degrees in Ancient History, Modern History, hence my Screen name 'Triphid' ( not the Triffids as in the movie " Day of the Triffids btw), i.e. the 'Tri" meaning 3 of and the phd meaning Doctorate Degrees, I just added in the 'i' and used the lower case letters for the ph and d.
Yes, I know that atoms exist since one of Bachelor Degrees does encompass Science/s as well.
You, I and everything in this Universe is made up of atoms and those atoms combine to make up molecules, etc, etc, ( I don't want to go into the 'finer'details with in case they may be beyond your comprehension.
Though I do feel sure that should you deem it worthy enough of your efforts you MAY actually consider studying a little harder and become one who has a bit of extra knowledge.
Best of Luck with any future studies you undertake.

There is no imaginary, supernatural realm, where supreme beings (gods, devils, angles, demons, spirits, ghosts, who knows what else) exists.

@Jetty Let me put it to you this way then; real things can be proven even if, like the dinosaurs, those things have been extinct for tens of millions of years. Real things leave evidence of their existence. This holds true for everything from the largest mountains to the smallest sub-atomic particle. All of them can be demonstrated because all of them have been proven. Gods has never been proven to be real because they don't exist. There can be no evidence for the existence of something that isn't real.

The very concept of gods refutes their existence -- there can be no omnipotent magical beings because omnipotence and magic aren't real. Do you challenge this conclusion?

@Jetty I see. So your interest is purely academic then. I misunderstood. I thought you were open to the idea that a deity of some kind was still a possibility for you. I was going to try and disavow you of that notion cuz...atheism. If this is just an intellectual exercise, by all means, have at it.

Yes it was. I'd say it started with the likes of Copernicus and then became solidified with Newton.

@Jetty Yes indeed. The watchmaker is God and once he wound up the watch, it never needs restarting. It's a little bit at odds with Newton's idea that certain planets needed a nudge every now and then to keep them on course but generally speaking, God was removed from the picture.