Evidence for Believing

[The Grand Nudger]

---

A brute fact is reducible, logically, and that's the problem with it.

Hardly, the problem is that a brute fact is irreducible by definition.  That's your problem.  Not a problem for any brute fact.

We can logically reason that something is reducible, but then there is an assertion that, no, actually, that's all there is. The rational explanations simply stop there, because we can't physically observe or measure more than that.

Unfiltered stream of consciousness?  

The brute fact that anything exists without reason or explanation is arbitrary and irrational, and not consistent with how we investigate reality.

heres wiki describing a brute fact

In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation). To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained.

Do you now think that everything can be explained, as you reject the fundamental criteria of a brute fact above?  That's going to be hard to fit into your gap manufacturing. You don't know what a brute fact is, and you can't cogently describe any rational problem with a brute fact. Further, any issue you raise with brute facts will be disastrous for your god concept. God is, after all, the ultimate brute fact.

Is god arbitrary, irrational, and not consistent with how we investigate reality? Is god reducible?