No, you haven't. You are always talking about ''god'' but you never specify which god or why the christian god is better than the other gods. Your argument simply says it's logical and rational to believe in ''god'' but which god and why the christian god?
First I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24187846#msg24187846I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24374030#msg24374030I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24330562#msg24330562Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24418501#msg24418501If you had understood my arguments above you would realise that I already answered your questions. A single God is a logical necessity resulting from the proprieties of the indivisible and the infinite.
What then can we say about the words of the Christian Priest versus the words of the Jewish Rabbi and the Islamic Imam?
They must logically be attempting to describe the same infinite God.
The Priest, Rabbi, and Imam are all human, imperfect, and finite so their truth and ours must necessarily be incomplete at best a pale reflection of the reality of God.
Ok, let's start again.
''First I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852''
No, no and no. Simply wrong.
First of all you cannot even apply kurt godel theorem to the universe:
https://www.quora.com/Can-G%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorem-applied-to-the-universe-prove-the-existence-of-God''Gödels Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; its equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.''
This statement is simply wrong.
Appeals to the incompleteness theorems in other fields[edit]
Appeals and analogies are sometimes made to the incompleteness theorems in support of arguments that go beyond mathematics and logic. Several authors have commented negatively on such extensions and interpretations, including Torkel Franzén (2004); Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (1999); and Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom (2006). Bricmont and Stangroom (2006, p. 10), for example, quote from Rebecca Goldstein's comments on the disparity between Gödel's avowed Platonism and the anti-realist uses to which his ideas are sometimes put. Sokal and Bricmont (1999, p. 187) criticize Régis Debray's invocation of the theorem in the context of sociology; Debray has defended this use as metaphorical (ibid.).
Everything said in your article is plain wrong.