Adam had no problem, neither did Noah, Abraham, and so on. When did God exactly become transcendental? How do you know that he is transcendental? How do you know what he is like if not by an a priori acceptance of a book (a physical evidence), written by human beings, and even there he is not always transcendental.
If something is not detectable then it is presumed. What difference is there if we call it God, pink unicorns on Jupiter, Snow White, or Santa; it's still a presumption.
The physical world, even your strawberry test, is our only litmus meter because we are physical beings (the spiritual is presumed). So, even our subjective is verified by the physical because, on a chemical level, ultimately even the taste is physical, just as heat or pain is.
How do you apply your strawberry test to God? You are absolutely right that what I call green may not appear as the same color to you, but we all call it green. I don't know and can't know what it looks like to you, just as I can't tell you what strawberry tastes like. But we can say it "tastes good." or that it "tastes bad" or that it "has no taste".
Just because the two of us agree that it "tastes good," does it have to "taste good" to everyone else? This subjective "truth" is not only subjective but also very relative. Unfortunately, people don't treat subjective as relative.
Some think strawberries "taste bad." Are they "heretics?" Are they "blind and deaf" or totally "depraved" because they don't agree that strawberries "taste good?"
And what proof other than our subjective impression do we have that it "tastes good?" And on what grounds do we justly the idea that all those who don't think strawberries "taste good" are "wrong?"
And is it a crime, morally wrong, what have you, to change your mind about taste? I used to hate spinach when I was a kid. Now I love it. Was I "wrong" then or am I "wrong" now? Was I "depraved" then and "enlightened" now?
Taking this one step further, should we burn the pesky strawberry "tastes good" deniers at stake for blasphemy against the "truth" that strawberries taste good, as "revealed" to you and me?
Sounds ridiculous but that's precisely how the world of religion acts out with people who don't "taste" their proverbial strawberry in the sky the "right" way. Millions have died over this.
God is an idea, an abstraction, a hypothesis. No one even knows how to define the divine. How can one recognize the form if one doesn't know the essence? Yet so many treat it as a matter of fact.
The burden of proof is on the assumption, not on the doubt. It is on me to prove that pink unicorns exist on Jupiter, not on anyone who doubts that. And until I prove they exist I can't place them on the par with the real world and talk about them as if it were a fact. But believers do. And they know exactly which strawberry is right and how it must taste to everyone or else you are on the "dark side" and doomed.
Unlike God, a strawberry is real, and our difference is based on subjective taste alone. In the case of God, we can't even show that he is real, let alone what he "tastes" like.
So, we are arguing over the 'taste' of 'food' that doesn't even physically exist or at least is not physically discernible, logically definable, mentally conceivable, etc. but supposedly clearly "experienced" with great certainty and detail even thou it transcends our senses, time, space and logic! 'If that's not insane I don't know what is.
You write If the transcendent exists, it impossible to see with the tools you require - tools that by design cannot see it. Therefore, you claim it does not exist. That's a error in reason called a category error.
How do you know it exists if we don't have the "tools"? You can't prove that something exists just because you can imagine it. And a subjective experience is, shall we say, as much relative as it is unreliable.
When did God exactly become transcendental?
In Christianity, at least as early as St John Damascene and other giants in Christian theology. Certainly today, a transcendent God is fundamental to Christian theology.
What difference is there if we call it God, pink unicorns on Jupiter, Snow White, or Santa; it's still a presumption.
Logic itself relies on presumptions, self-evident truths, axioms, etc. It cannot even begin a solid "proof" without one. So, presumption alone is not a disqualification for knowledge or proof.
The physical world, even your strawberry test, is our only litmus meter because we are physical beings
But we are not only physical beings. We also have intellect and consciousness. So, I'd amend it to: personal experience - whether physical or mental etc. is our means of best knowledge. Whether it be the taste of strawberries or a logical proof or a moral axiom.
And what proof other than our subjective impression do we have that it "tastes good?"
None, other than agreement with others. But hard objective proof? None. Some things we can only know subjectively. It's still knowledge.
It is on me to prove that pink unicorns exist on Jupiter, not on anyone who doubts that.
I agree which is why I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of God. I believe something exists and further that something likely will be found by others who continue seeking knowledge. But in this regard I can't give my knowledge to them. It's like the strawberry in that regard.
There's an intellectual side to it, but you run past intellectual utility after a while. Like trying to describe a taste or logically prove "strawberries taste good." It's interesting but you're not going to get there from here IMHO.
The father of logic, Aquinas, gave it as good a go as any but his first cause argument is quite limited in scope as far as "proof" of God.
I'm sure you're aware of the Orthodox objection to applying logical proofs to this and the Eucharist for example.
How do you know it exists if we don't have the "tools"?
I said that if the transcendent exists, you can't, by definition use the tools of physical science and reason/logic alone to know it. These, again, are not the only means we have to know.
And a subjective experience is, shall we say, as much relative as it is unreliable.
We should use everything we have to increase our knowledge, whether it be taste, smell or working through a geometric proof using a physical model. We can't avoid subjective knowledge; we're not objects separate from reality, we are part of reality. Direct personal experience, subjective, is a bigger part of how we really know what we know than you're aware of perhaps.