Interesting to prove God exists using logic.
First you need to prove thatr logic exists without God.
Why? If I am using logic, doesn't that prove that it exists? I don't need to prove a hammer exists while I'm building a house, do I? Why would I need to prove God's existence in order to use logic? And while I'm using logic, it obviously exists or I wouldn't be able to use. How does one use nothing, and how does one go about proving nothing exists? Isn't it a given that nothing doesn't exist?
QUOTE]Christian theology teaches that God exists outside of the material universe, that time, space, energy and matter are all his creation.[/QUOTE]
So true! God is synonymous with transcendence. Which necessarily leads us to the irrefutable conclusion that God cannot exist in the material observable universe. God and God's kingdom cannot be discerned by observation. Christ pointed out that simple fact himself.
QUOTE]It also teaches that the universe reflecs something of Gods character,[/QUOTE]
And a reflection cannot be what is reflected, especially when the reflection can't reflect a "what" or "thing" to begin with. John's introduction points out that "all things are created", and God is not any thing.
in that God is reasonable and rational
God is not synonymous with "reasonable" or "rational". Look up the definitions of both, and you will find nothing even suggesting God's existence. This assertion is in need of some deductive proof.
so the universe is also able to be understood by reason.
And yet we are also aware of the universe without the use of our intellect. There is no reason to arbitrarily select our reasoning capacity as a proof for God. Why not any of our other senses as well?
The universe is not understood. This word for a whole lot of empty space with scattered clouds of hydrogen gas and swirling rocks doesn't tell us much of anything. We see it expanding, but we don't know why. We see it is vast, but in relation to what? Us? The more we know, the more we don't know. Understanding is not fundamental, but derivative, and it doesn't then follow that we can then know much of anything using what is itself a derivative or reflection.
It follows then that logic is merely an out working of Gods character.
You're assuming that by observing the world that exists we can infer or demonstrate the existence of what is beyond this world. The problem is that attaching the word "God" to that doesn't tell us much of anything. The problem is that the common denominator of all that exists is existence itself, and to transcend all that exists without transcending existence is to ignore the basic meaning of the word. You're simply contradicting yourself.
The question boils down to why is there something rather than nothing? The fact is that there is something rather than nothing, but the proverbial fly in the ointment is that our western way of thinking necessarily provides "nothing" as a counterweight to "something" as if it exists. Nothing doesn't exist except as a counterweight for our dualistic way of thinking about something. The problem is that we assume that logic conveys reality. It doesn't. Logic must simply assume nothing doesn't exist which is a contradiction, and the fallacy of begging the question.
You can't use logic to prove God's existence because logic is a science, and sciences do not deal with anything other than deductions and demonstrations of the observable world. Again, God is not observable. The bible points out that God and God's kingdom cannot be discerned by observation, and only what exists can be observed.
It doesn't then follow that everything that exists can be observed, but then as I pointed out before, John informs us that God is not anything.