I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

And my point is that it's completely irrelevant to my argument. My argument being that whether he's nontemporal or not, he still requires an explanation.

I have already given long and thorough explanations of A), what the word God signifies, and B) why God exists. Within the many pages of the thread I presented several reasons why. You have virtually only addressed the TAG; the state of affairs in reality of potency/actuality you haven't addressed at all, though it is fundamental to my understanding of God.

StHe is still just as complex

You have failed to demonstrate that and only managed to repeat it using your fallacious definitions.

what you're doing is talking about him being nontemporal and saying that he's simple and necessary

And have you actually wondered why? I never said that merely postulating that a thing is nontemporal proves that it exists. What kind of straw man is that? I am saying God is nontemporal because that is what the knowledge from potentiality/actuality mandates.

, and as you did with the TAG, how atheism=self-contradictory, blah, blah, blah - and none of this actually addresses the issue, none of this is actually evidence for God. Got any or not?

I have already laid out my reasons to think that God exists. Again you misrepresent me. TAG is not the only argument I gave. But my activity for the last ten pages has not been proving Gods existence, but answering questions. Now you made a postulate that God was complex. This was not about my evidence; I have not seen a refutation of the given evidence, and now I am elaborating on what God signifies in relevance to your claim he is complex, not proving he exists (if you want evidence for the notion of God I have presented, read again my numerous posts about reality, potentiality and actuality).

This is all irrelevant to my argument. He still requires an explanation and still requires evidence...you've just playing with words - give me some evidence instead perhaps?

It is not irrelevant to your argument. Your argument was not about the evidence for Gods existence, but about the complexity of God. I categorically refuted your fallacious Straw Man which you tried to use as evidence that God is ontologically complex.

It's not a Strawman because I'm not saying he's temporal I'm saying that whether he is or not is irrelevant to the fact he requires evidence.

You are saying that you can analyse a temporal ontology and by that prove that God is complex, which is categorically a Straw Man fallacy, since you are addressing the ontology A and pretending to make significantive conclusions about the ontology B in addressing the mutually exclusive ontology A.

No because you have to give evidence that nontemporal makes any difference to the matter

A temporal ontology is fundamentally different from a non-temporal one. A temporal probability of a thing to come into existence is completely irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of a nontemporal being, which is a matter of purely actual ontology, not of potential ontogeny. What relevance and difference does this make? It makes a difference in essence and therefore a difference to the measure of complexity, which was what the argument was originally about. The measure of complexity is not temporal in a non-temporal ontology. It is not potentiality in a non-potential ontology. The measure of complexity in a non-temporal being is not about the probability of ontogeny (an irrelevant statistical issue of the likelihood of a potentiality to become actual, impertinent to an ontology with no potentialities), but about essential and purely actual ontology (composition of parts or lack thereof).