> it still doesn't prove the existence of God You mean the God of your religion. If Goedel believed his argument that would make him a kind of deist. > Even i

> it still doesn't prove the existence of God You mean the God of your religion. If Goedel believed his argument that would make him a kind of deist. > Even if Goedel's argument didn't have logical jumps based on non-essential assumptions Goedel's argument is tight given the axioms, though. It's been formally verified. The God that you mention that may have contradictory properties isn't that interesting for logical analysis, since it's likely that logicians only want to consider "Gods" whose existence do not render useless their logical system (contradiction leads to the principle of explosion). Hence you won't find primarily logical works discussing such a God. > which satisfies Goedel's axioms to be pedantic, his "God" doesn't satisfy Goedel's axioms, his "God" satisfies his definition of "God". Then the argument has that you accept its existence once you accept the axioms of the argument. > Well, who (apart from Goedel himself) said that those are the properties of God, and not others? Well, in most cultures, you call a kind of sufficiently magical or spiritual or ineffable entity a god. Nobody has a monopoly on the word "God", and many cultures use the word to refer to entities unrecognizable as the one you call God.