So you didn't really mention almost anything, you also didn't explain why you believe in anything perry marshall says or why we should trust him or why do you think what he said is true, are you a scientist expert in the incompleteness theory?
...
It seems to me that you are the one who needs to read more about the incompleteness theorem and what it means. The argument of perry marshall is the same god of gaps, as always.
You are starting to sound like badecker.
Ok let's review some logic 101:
If you want to try and prove that an argument is internally inconsistent you first have to state it in formal language.
In the case of Perry Marshall's argument the talk of circles is non-formal language that he used to simplify and conceptualise his argument for lay readers. Below is his argument in formal language.
Stated in Formal Language:
Gödels theorem says: Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
The rest of his essay starts from the assumption that the universe is finite. If the universe is both finite and incomplete we can then deduce certain basic properties of what lies outside of the universe.
You ask why believe in anything perry marshall says, why we should trust him, and why do you think what he said is true?
Logic is not about belief or trust it is about identifying arguments. Logic tells us that if something is true then something else must be true. You don't need to trust or believe Perry Marshall you just need to follow his logic and then decide if you agree with his assumptions.
As Perry Marshall stated "Incompleteness of the universe isnt proof that God exists. However, it is proof that in constructing a rational,
scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical."
You have already essentially conceded the same point upthread.
God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false