So many IF's in your argument.
...
no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares
...
why don't you just admit that he is wrong?
how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe?
Logical arguments are a series of conditional IF-THEN statements built upon axioms. This is what logic is. It is also how we "know" an argument is "right".
That fact that famous atheist have not challenged Perry Marshall argument is not relevant.
Upthread you said Perry Marshall was an electrical engineer I did not actually know that but that's also irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fail on their merits.
Without meaning to be insulting your posts sometimes give the impression that you rely on others sources you consider to be authoritative to tell you what to believe. You do not need to do this as you are intelligent and capable of breaking an argument down to its basic assumptions as you demonstrate below.
'''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible a question we cannot answer, does it?
...
There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system.
Good job you have found the third and final major assumption in Perry Marshall's argument. I was not going to tell you this one unless you figured it out for yourself.
Gödels Incompleteness Theorem tell's us that any logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. Is God one of those questions that cannot be answered from within the system?
Perry Marshall assumes that it is but he does not prove this. As you said the property of being an uncaused cause alone could potentially be characterized.
With this we have identified all of the primary assumptions in Perry Marshall's argument. These are:
1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.
If all three of these assumptions are true THEN Perry Marshall's conclusions logically follow. All of the assumptions Perry Marshall makes are reasonable I do not believe any of them can be proven false but that does not mean they are true.
We can as asema did argue that the universe is not finite. A strong nihilist might argue that the universe may not be rational. Finally a theist may argue that God can be proven directly so assumption three is false and Perry Marshall's argument is unnecessary.
IF all three of Perry Marshall's assumptions are true THEN his conclusions follow.
Do we agree?