God and Logic - Why Reality Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Them

In examination of the God hypothesis, we must first look to define reality, logic, existence and truth.

There are two ways to think about reality. The first is the "observable universe", which is everything we will ever perceive through the senses. The second is "total reality", which may include other realms, dimensions or the multiverse. We currently only glimpse total reality by the use of pure mathematics. When we examine reality, we find it to have certain properties; everything consists of matter or energy which follow fixed, consistent laws of nature which are mathematically describable.

Logic is derived from reality. In a sense, we made up the concept of "logic," which follows the fact that the laws of nature are consistent and fixed, where matter is extremely well behaved in following such laws. Matter and energy can be thought of as logically describable. In this way, "logic" describes "reality" with ultimate precision. Various methods of verification (perception, testability, consistency, evidence and logic itself) support the logic of total reality. These methods have been placed in greater frameworks we now call science and mathematics, which are methods used to uncover the logic of reality. Essentially, logical methodology uncovers logical reality. Even total reality follows pure mathematics, which is intrinsically logical. Because of all this, we think of logic as a good thing simply because it describes reality so precisely.

Existence is part of reality. For something to be said to exist, it must be perceivable (either directly or indirectly) by the senses. If we widen the definition, anyone could simply claim anything "exists". The scientific principles I mentioned are used to find things which exist in total reality. We cannot see black holes, dark matter, strings or alternate dimensions, but they are logically described by mathematics and science with consistency, so we take them to be in "existence" and therefore part of "reality".

When a feature of reality is found to be perceivable, logical, testable, reproducible and consistent, we call it truth. If we have described as aspect of reality properly, we allow ourselves to call it "true". Again, if we widen the definition any further, anyone could claim anything to be true, despite any lack of the known properties of existence or reality. An example of this is "spiritual truth", where theists try to pass off subjective truth claims as valid or accurate despite a total lack of the recognised qualities of truth.

Now try explaining God using logic. He is not perceivable, not testable, not consistent and not evident. He is a complete refutation of all the understood features ascribed to "existence" or "reality." Alternatively, try explaining God without logic. You cannot say that something is outside of logic, because this a refutation of all that we know and have shown to be consistent with what we mean by reality, existence and truth.

So in summary, for God to be outside reality or logic is to say he is outside existence or truth (being concepts which can only follow on from reality and logic). On the other hand, for God to be within what we understand as reality, logic, existence or truth, we must redefine all such concepts, since God cannot be logically demonstrated through evidence, testability, consistency or perception. So either way, it cannot work as a rational hypothesis.