I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

If that's an argument then what you have failed to understand is the burden of proof.

It's not an argument; it's a comparison of different scenarios.

A transcendental God is an assumption. And yes, no transcendental God is also an assumption. But the burden of proof is on those who believe in a God.

I believe I have proof enough of a transcendent God, to at least consider his existence highly probably, based on the reasons I have given here and other reasons.

Because what we already know to exist, the universe, by itself, is a less complex hypothesis than the universe + .An omnipotent supernatural "God" with a so-called 'objective mind'.

That it not necessarily so, and the doctrine of divine simplicity would wholeheartedly disagree; it would state that the capability of the universe to contain multiplicity and complexity due to the of it's constants and physical laws and nature, mandates that there be a simpler, and ultimately singular reality (God) that transcends it.

Well this definition of God is all fine and dandy as any other. But like the others it has one crutial problem - it lacks evidence.

It doesn't; it's exactly the kind of God the argument from potentiality/actuality evidences.

Yeah, sure. Where is it? Where do you genuinely demonstrate his existence? I don't care how you do it or whether it's direct or not - I just care that it's valid.

I demonstrate it based on empirical and rational knowledge in the argument from potentiality/actuality. And the transcendental argument demonstrates it based on rational knowledge and analysis of intrinsic logical coherence.