Yes, the word God belongs to the religious realm. So, the word God is not a scientific word. Who cares? One must stand inside the religious realm to use the word, and you do so the second you use the word God. I can use the word God and make it the same as the word Energy, and voila, we are done. I then have a meaning for the word God, one that is indeed 100% real.

Ultimately, it comes down therefore on where you are putting your feet. Where are you standing when you use the word God and then are trying to undermine it? I can see the logic in your brain to make such an interesting juxtaposition of science (logic) and religion (logic of a different kind), but your brain is not touching the ground. Who cares about a brain that is not touching the ground?

Why trying to show that a fish cannot use a bicycle? Does it invalidate the fish? No, the fish belongs to its own realm. The bicycle belongs to another realm.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems declare that you should stick to the realm in which you are standing and in which you can find a completeness of the axioms belonging to that realm.

The minute you want to stand above the realm of your choosing, you find yourself in an area for which there is no framework. Gödel already showed that the word Universe is not a framework of its own. Rather, it is an amalgamation of all parts, all axioms, plus a lot of space, a lot of space. It is not a framework of its own.

So, do not work with a framework at that largest of levels. That would then be a brain fart, Paul. It appears that you are standing inside a framework that does not exist.

In short: Do not jump realms.

Stick to the realm of your choice and battle it out. If you bump into the boundaries of that realm? Good. That is exactly as it ought to be.