Even if this is “proof”, ( I would like to hear Dllahunty tackle this argument) religion still has a lot of work to show tha it is their “God”.

If you can prove one god, then you can prove them all.

Ho-hum, not again…

Junk. Anselm's ontological argument in new clothes.
Existence isn't a property.
Imagine an apple that exists.
Now imagine an apple that doesn't exist.
It's the same apple.

Wouldn’t “existence” involve “objective evidence?” Fwiw Yah makes no claims to existence, as revealed in the I AM and the “wind” analogy, although we now know what wind is made of, so without a little imagination that analogy now breaks down

but “ When Gödel discusses these “positive” properties, he is talking about it in the sense of a “good” property. For example, consider the positive property of tasting good. When food tastes good, it is enjoyable to eat. By this axiom, the property of being enjoyable to eat would necessarily be a positive property also because it is always caused by food tasting good, which is a positive property” obviously requires that Godel has deemed a property “good,” right?

What if it tastes like crap to me? The point being that Godel has chosen to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil here

What he proves exists is gobbledygook (or maybe god bbledygook).

Wishful thinking. Wrong again.

He has to many IF's in his math.

This sounds like the 'argument from perfection' (called the 'argument from degree' on Wikipedia) which is often attributed to Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274). It was one of his supposed 'five proofs' of the existence of God. Who would have to be a singular supreme being for the proofs to work.

A logical proof means that the conclusion follows logically if you accept the axioms not that the conclusions are correct.

Line 4: Definition - A god-like being possesses all positive properties.

The problem with this definition is that it assumes the existence of the being.

Line 5: Axiom - The property of being god-like is positive.

Line 6: Theory - Possibly god exists

Gödel reasoning fails at Df. 1. It makes the unjustified assumption that "godlike" can be defined in mathematics terms, in terms of the natural world, or both. He also makes the assumption that proof exists in science. He has committed the logical fallacies of circular reasoning and of category error.

He may have been a brilliant mathematician (look at his incompleteness theorems, for example) but he was a terrible scientist.

Yes, most likely he is talking about Apollo. We had to get here somehow and that having parents story isn't enough. Each of us got here through the individual god that we believe in and that info is ever changing.

I'm good at math and I came up with this solution and then ran it through my computer.

It said bullshit lol

Yet another desperate attempt to make a fairy tale be taken as truth.

Quoting from the article: " Gödel’s proof shows the existence of God is a necessary truth. The idea behind the truth is not new and dates back to Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). "

So the above discusses Godel's symbolic representation of the following argument from Saint Anselm:

St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

[plato.stanford.edu]

I believe the problem with such arguments comes from their containing some self-referencing phrases. Self-referencing semantics commonly generate paradoxes which are like logic knots that have no resolution - - i.e. semantic or linguistic paradoxes.

Too many, if's for me. If this, if that, if if if, nothing concrete, just a shit load of ifs.

Must be a human error in the math.

Since an axiom is assumed to be true and when used in an equation, I have to assume some error could be involved !