I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

1) The universe can work just fine without a transcendal 'God'. 2) If God can exist from the beginning then so can the universe, 3) and the universe is less complex than the universe + God.

1) If there is a transcendental God, then he is a necessary being, and then the universe cannot work "just fine without him". If there is not, then there is not a necessity of that being, and then the universe can work just fine without him. You just proved, yet again, that all you really have to offer is a presupposition: namely the presupposition that there is not a necessary being, only in which case the latter conclusion is correct.

2) A transcendental God is not just a God who exists only from the beginning, but exactly transcendental to time, and therefore nontemporal and existing wholly apart from the beginning and the ending. Otherwise he would be immanent and temporal, not transcendent.

3) Not according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, which signifies that God is the simplest possible being, and that the origin of the complex universe is in God, the simple being whose attributes all reflect on his singular (mono) ontology, as opposed to the attributes of the universe and its capability for containing a multiplicity of them which are not equal and much complexity and contradictions, as opposed to the singular ontology of the necessary being.

So I need some physcial evidence of him, because if he's non-physcial I can't detect him, I can't know of any evidence of him, so there's no reason top believe in him.

You can test Gods existence through the principles of logic, rational and empirical inquiry, since if God truly exists, then his existence has effects which means that we can know, by understanding the nature of reality, whether God is the source for the effect we call the universe. Though you cannot directly observe him, that doesn't exclude evidence, neither of purely rational nor empirically based kinds. We've been over this before; direct observation is not the only kind of evidence of a thing. There is also evidence after the effect.

---

So your god is allowed to be uncreated but my universe isn't? Why isn't god an actualised potentiality? He just "is" yet my universe must be caused?[/hide]

Look around you. You see that this universe is impure actuality, which means a composition of actuality and potentiality through actualised potentiality, because what exists now has unrealised potencies, which means the aptitude for change or for a new thing coming to be true of that thing. That which has unrealised potencies, is not pure actuality, because pure actuality is not purely actual unless it is completely (purely) actual, with nothing being unactual -unrealised/still potential- in it; if it is not purely actual -realised-, and has unrealised potencies, it is impure actuality (like our universe), and it has aptitude for change, and it will constantly change and evolve and unactual real potencies of that thing can (and will) become actual, and this constantly keeps happening while it exists. That is not pure actuality; that is impure actuality, that is, the actuality of a potency which is itself an actualised potency of another thing, and which itself carries other unactual potencies in itself that have yet to become actual.