Here is a version of the argument: There are necessary and eternal abstract truths like

mathematical propositions such as 1+1=2 or that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle adds
up to 180 degrees or the pythagorean theorem. We discovered these truths as opposed to
inventing them because they are objective and unchangeable facts. These truths are not
dependent on human beings or material reality. It is true that 1+1=2 before any human being ever
existed and it was true before any material reality existed (i.e. the universe) and it will be true
even if all human beings and material reality went out of existence. But then, what accounts for
their existence? In what way do these truths exist? Well, they aren't material or physical at all. In
fact, since they are abstract, the only way that they can exist are as abstract objects (or the
objects of thought), which are grounded in an intellect or mind. Therefore, we must come to a
necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for the existence for these
abstract objects, which are the eternal truths. And this is what we call God or the Divine Intellect.

The first line does not assume that disembodied minds exists. The first line simply says that there
are necessary abstract truths. These mathematical truths are necessary, and so they cannot be
grounded in material reality or contingent intellect. They are not true because "we agree to the
basic axioms". It would still be true that 1+1=2 even if everyone in the whole planet disagreed and
thought that it equaled 5. But, since they are abstract they must me grounded in some sort of
intellect or mind. So, they must be grounded in a necessarily existing intellect.

Since, such an intellect would exist out of absolute necessity, it must be purely actual because if it
had some potential for existence, then it could fail to exist. But, since whatever is necessary
cannot fail to exist, the necessary intellect must be purely actual. And whatever is purely actual
cannot be corporeal since all corporeal things have potentials, this necessarily existing intellect
must be incorporeal.

Well for starters, it is not a completely "unknown mechanism", since we know that it exists (but I
would refrain from calling it a mechanism) and we know that it must have certain attributes like
necessity, intellectuality, and pure actuality. But from these, we can also derive the other divine
attributes definitive of the God of classical theism. So, yes, we are fully within our rights to label
this necessarily existing intellect 'God'. I never said the universe is eternal. I said that these
necessary abstract truths do not depend on the universe since they are immutable and cannot fail
to exist while the universe is constantly changing and can fail to exist. It's not a non-sequitur. The
conclusion follows from the premises.