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.
A little late, don't you think? I mean, 800 years after Christ...
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.
Unless it is trying to prove something real. Outside of geometry, I can't think of too many self-evident truths that would apply to the real world with certainty, but I am saying this wihtout giving it much thought, so I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.
Besides, pure logical "proofs" are not real proofs but theorems or working models.
But we are not only physical beings. We also have intellect and consciousness
They are not sui-generis existence, but epiphenomena of the nervous system.
Whether it be the taste of strawberries or a logical proof or a moral axiom.
Talk about mixing categories and lumping them all in one basket! What is a moral "axiom" anyway?
Some things we can only know subjectively. It's still knowledge
You are using "knowledge" as awareness. What we are aware of are called "feelings." A strawberry "tastes good" because its meat gives us a pleasing/satisfying feeling (meaning we want to extend it or repeat it ad nauseum). We don't know why a strawberries "taste good." It's not knowledge (as in rational knowledge); it's awareness.
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.
Behavior that repeats itself is defined as "feels good." It's an inference, not a proof. The only way to "prove" something tastes good is to ask an individual if it does. And that is an investigative proof rather than logical.
I'm sure you're aware of the Orthodox objection to applying logical proofs to this and the Eucharist for example.
Yes, of course. The Orthodox would never postulate something like 'transubstantiation.' To them, divine mysteries are God's secrets not meant to be understood by humans. In other words, Orthodoxy firmly believes, without going into the details and mechanics as to how, that the bread and wine are ontologically changed by the Holy Spirit following the humble petition of the priest. (See epiclesis).