I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Then you still lack an explanation for him, and require evidence. There's still no reason to believe he exits as well as the universe.

First of all, I do have evidence of a transcendent God. Second of all, that's not what I was dealing with, I was dealing merely with the conceptual signification of "transcendent", which you hadn't understood by temporally limiting it. It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it - Aristotle.

You still haven't provided evidence for him though.

I have provided evidence, the argument from potentiality/actuality, and the several forms of transcendental argument, both the orthodox TAG and my own versions of a transcendental argument which builds on knowledge of the natural world after the effect.

And if he's capable of creating the universe or manipulating any of it, he has to be [complex]. It does no good to just say "He isn't because he's transcendent!" that's a copout. To be able to do those things he's by definition complex.

Not so. Pure actuality, which itself implies absolute simplicity, implies omnipotence without complexity, because pure actuality is the actual principle in every potential reality which we see has become actual in the form of this universe. The more complex issuing forth from the less complex is not a problem, anyway; even in naturalistic metaphysics, most cosmogonies ultimately suggest (for instance, in quantum physics) that the universe issued forth from something much smaller and simpler than what exists now, which had the potence to produce everything in existence now. And, don't forget, that even that is not absolute simplicity, but limited simplicity within an already existing composite reality, such that the potence of absolute simplicity is even greater than this.

---

The whole issue of whether 'logical truth' can exist independent of subjective minds is a meaningless question. 'Logical truth' is an explanatory tool to explain human-defined concepts. Its akin to asking "does the theory of evolution by natural selection" exist independently of subjective minds.

No. It's akin to asking, "Is the theory of evolution true regardless of what human minds think about it's truth?". That is, does the truth of the theory of evolution exist independently of the human conception of it? Are conceptual realities that apply to natural phenomena, such as the truth of the theory of evolution, or the logical behaviour of reality at various levels, realities limited to the human conception of them, which are thus defined by humans conceptions of them or are they realities wholly apart from human conceptions of them? Read my argument again.

What does that even mean? Whether you call me a 'mind' or a 'body', what does that change? What is your point?

Mind is simply the English term for a knowing or thinking entity. In other words, a nous, or an intellect.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exists independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.

You don't need to posit a transcendent objective mind, to explain such natural mechanisms - if you do so, the evidence must follow.

I have evidence in favour of a transcendent God who is an omniscient, intellectual being - read above.