Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Neo-Scholastic]

…why should reality not be intelligible without a god?

Asking questions as double negatives makes it more difficult for readers to understand your questions. It’s either lazy writing, sloppy thinking, or disingenuous. More simply stated, the question actually asked is the following:

Question 1: “Why must reality be intelligible with God?” Answer: It need not. He could have willed a cartoon world.

That answers your question but I’m pretty sure you meant the question rhetorically in order to assert that the intelligibility of reality is a brute fact. Yet brute fact comes in three different flavors: 1) those that need no explanation, 2) those that have no explanation, and 3) those that cannot be explained.

So which did you have in mind?