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.
Sigh... ok if you insist.
Astargath you are both repeating yourself and making assertions that do not follow from your actual arguments.
Although I have not read the work of Torkel Franzén, or Ophelia Benson from your quote it seems like they are simply disagreeing with the extension of incompleteness theorems beyond mathematics and logic. The fact that these authorities your appeal to have "commented negatively on such extensions" is not an actual argument. Commenting negatively on an argument does not prove it false any more then my commenting positively proves it true.
Upthread I already noted that if you do not accept the fundamental premises of the Incompleteness argument (that the universe is rational, logical, and finite) then yes you can challenge Perry Marshal's conclusion.
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/You demonstrate your lack of a background in either logic or philosophy when you claim "Everything said in your article is plain wrong.", "This statement is simply wrong", and "No, no and no."
Repeating yourself three times does not turn an unsupported assertion into a logical argument.
To review:
The Incompleteness theory of the universe isnt proof that God exists. But
it IS proof that when constructing a rational,
scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical
You seem to desperately want to feel that believing is God is entirely irrational. This seems to be an article of faith for you a "sacred truth" you insist on believing regardless of how torturous and unsubstantiated your arguments must become to defend it.
Your problem is that belief in God is entirely logical and rational so your arguments are growing increasingly inconclusive and incoherent.
Perhaps this link may be of use to you?
How to Make a Logical Argumenthttps://www.google.com/amp/s/m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Logical-Argument%3Famp%3D1