I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Ryft]

[As for your claim that] you were once an atheist, it was pointless [...] done purely to 'score points' and in some way 'prove' you have now chosen a superior path.

First, it was not pointless. Minimalist identified himself as an atheist who is an ex-Christian, so Jon identified himself as a Christian who is an ex-atheist. Jon was in other words saying to him, "So what?" And it was rather spot on. Second, when Minimalist identified himself as a former "xtian" who rejected those "fairy tales" with unabashed prejudicial language, was it done to 'score points' and in some way 'prove' he has now chosen a superior path? Your criticism of Jon applies also to Minimalist. Nay, it applies even more so to Minimalist because the contemptuous tone in his remarks tells us that he sees his atheism as a superior path—while not a fucking thing in Jon's post supports your wild speculation.

The law of non-contradiction is testable.

Is it? All right, describe the test.

The law of non-contradiction says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time, so the way to falsify this would be to find something that could be both true and false at the same time.

That is not exactly correct, Adrian. It states that (using your language) "something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect," the latter part being fundamentally important because something can be true in one respect and simultaneously false in a different respect.

[The law of non-contradiction] is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And this also is false. Look at the language used to express the proposition, Adrian: "something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect." Descriptives are expressed by "is/is not" statements (what is given a posteriori), while prescriptives or normatives are expressed by "can/cannot" statements (what is given a priori).

Your God is outside science, logic, observation, testability—you name it, your God "transcends" it.

God is by definition outside scientific observation and testability. Science conducts inquiries about the physical world; it is categorically the wrong tool for inquiries about non-empirical subjects, such as God, mathematics, values, logic, existence and so on. And God is not outside logic. Someone who argues for such a thing should never stop punching themselves in the face.

That is what the TAG does: it compares a Christian to an atheist worldview and concludes that Christianity is more likely to be true.

Incorrect, sorry. The TAG does not argue for the likelihood or probability of the Christian worldview. The TAG argues that the presuppositions of the Christian worldview and what can be inferred from them is the ONLY source of the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility, or making sense, of human experience. Any other worldview, when internally examined under its own terms, falls apart at some point, by being inconsistent (intrinsically or extrinsically), incoherent, inadequate, etc. The suggestion that the TAG argues for the "more likely" truth of Christianity confuses it with evidentialist apologetics.

Could you perhaps clarifiy the difference between an infinite amount of time, and outside of time?

The answer is contained within your question itself: "an infinite amount of time" is a temporal sum, requiring the dimension of temporality.

By the way, on the matter of complexity: When we say that God is not complex, we mean only that he is not composed of parts. Even a standard dictionary tells you that is what complex means: composed of interconnected parts; composite; arrangement of parts; etc. That is the meaning of "complex" we are using. To say that God is simple is not to say that he is easy to comprehend; divine simplicity is merely the antithesis or opposite of complexity. It is the statement that the attributes of God are neither individuated from each other nor separate from his essence; i.e., the being of God is identical to the attributes of God.

... the very nature of existence requires a temporal dimension.

Interesting statement of faith. Or do you have evidence for this?