1) Things are obviously illogical in the universe we find ourselves in.
2) I heard once about people not being able to understand things that were true in a context outside their understanding. So…
3) Complete logical inconsistency can no longer be used to judge truth or falsity, or compare merits, of theories so long as you claim the subject of your theorizing exists outside our realm of comprehension.

Which doesn’t really follow, as you point out, but.

At this point, why have theology at all? Shouldn’t the least sensical theological explanations have just as much merit to describe the ineffable God than those carefully wraught of text and scholarship? Shouldn’t explanations and claims that DIRECTLY contradict scripture then be just as plausible as ones that strictly adhere? For instance, we “know” a member of the trinity is simultaneously true man and true God, and simultaneously a complete God and a component of the same God that he is. Could I not then declare on careful study and communion with the Lord essentially any heretical theory I desired, say using bits of the old testament to try to bring back the old Polytheism, and claim that this is simultaneously true and uncontradictory of any existing doctorine? Well, obviously I could claim it, but on what basis can I choose between “true” and “false” even with regard to the scripture, if all contradictions are allowed and no thought is to be applied to the results? Anything is possible with God, he’s (she’s? see, I can’t disprove that either now) entirely outside our understanding and a mystery.

I think he’s completely shot himself in the foot here. :/

“I can imagine being confused by geometry, and it’s true. Therefore, since I’m confused by Christianity, it’s also true!”

But like you said – this basically comes down to having a backward flow of evidence. First the conclusion is reached, then evidence is “found” to support it. But once the conclusion is reached, there is already some link between the conclusion and the reality it describes – either it aligns with reality, or it doesn’t. No number of clever arguments could ever change that relationship once the conclusion has been reached.

Perhaps you or some of your readers haven’t come across these visualisations of dimensions – they’re exceptional and clarify the concept of dimensional mapping of which you spoke. I highly recommend the videos.