Very interesting read, Thanks! If I'm reading that article correctly, the criticism to Gödel is the same criticism I had for Leibniz: > A proof does not neces

Very interesting read, Thanks! If I'm reading that article correctly, the criticism to Gödel is the same criticism I had for Leibniz: > A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically. > Many philosophers have called the axioms into question.