Thank you, that is something that continues the discussion, rather than preventing discussion.
I believe the universe is the manifestation of three-dimensional reality. I think it is possible to have other dimensions, but that is incomprehensible to me.
Actually, I believe the consensus is currently four dimensions, with the fourth dimension currently referred to as "space-time." I can sense that myself in that our dimensional reality could not exist with out space-time as it could not exist without any one of the other three. I'm not sure if there is a difference between "time" and "space-time," but theorists seem to want to label it that way.
While I'm drifting off your topic thrust, which I will return to, this understanding of our universe just interests me. I think the description of four dimensional space is well grounded, much more than that of alternate realities, which is mostly known through current science fiction, but has been offered by theoretical physicists, which makes it interesting for science fiction to develop. But in my own limited reasoning abilities, it holds an interest to me. I can say why not? It may be of spiritual interest, but I really don't know.
I think the god thing gets really messed up as soon as we make it a personal being who cares about us as a good father cares about his children. Now you have to depend on it as a child depends on his/her parent and that just is not right.
This is what is so appealing about Pantheism. It requires no human qualities or supernatural sentience or leaps of logic to be deeply revered. It is certainly greater than all of us, who are mere infinitesimal parts of it's sum, and we would not be here without it, even if it takes no interest in our personal lives or requires nothing from us or for us.
But according to the Pantheist I mentioned earlier, there are pantheists who do attribute sentience and some vague human qualities to it also. The only requirement is that it be deified. To that, I had to ask why deify it if it has no god like qualities (god like as defined according to Christianity, of course). For that question he pointed me to the dictionary: "Deity; That which is deified." OK, he had me there, so I asked why would you worship the universe as a god, to which he offered, "Because I have a god shaped hole in my heart," at which point I mostly dismissed him.
But I did still respect him, even as off center (according to the Christian society I had been brought up under), he still made more rational sense to me than most other's spiritual claims, and I had already given serious thought to such a god in my own spiritual quest, even though I eventually threw the whole quest out as a wild goose chase. But who am I do say what people should be allowed to deify, if they need such a thing.
On the other hand, logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. Science is a better way to learn about this controlling force than reading a holy book that plagiarizes Sumerian mythology.
The universe does have control over one overriding human experience, but I don't think it uses logic or even needs such a thing to exert that force, but I agree about exploring these controlling forces through science. And science does it far more elegantly than any mythology as it goes about understanding a universe that creates awe and wonder beyond our current grasp. It also leaves the door open for human made religions, which seem little more that minor quirks in a much greater quest to understand.
We have a fight. Exactly what is God? Who says? Critically speaking, does the author of a dictionary have the authority to define God, or do the authors of dictionaries define a word and possibly where it originated and how we use the word? Our argument is not if there is or is not a god, but how we are using a word to mean a concept named in the word. 
this argument. It is these differences we should argue about and I am so frustrated with atheists proving Christian mythology right when they totally reject the word "god". As though both people are talking about the same god. It would be far more productive to force an argument about the concept of "god". What is god? How do we know that is the correct understanding of god? 
