Arguments aiming to prove God's existence/non-existence

[Antonio the Sixth]

If there's somehting I've hated in philosophical works, it's when someone tries to "prove" God's existence/non-existence.

I have my opinion about God, I think he probably doesn't exist, but at least I have the modesty to call my opinion for what it is : a guess based on nothing. The notion of "God" just goes too far beyond human rationality for us to be able to discuss it as if it were a scientifical issue. I've no problem with those who believe/don't believe in God, as long as they realize this is only a belief and that there's no way to objectively know it except dying.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Such arguments are generally silly collections of strawmen that make certain assumptions in their proof about what God would do if he exists and then use those assumptions to 'prove' that certain other assumptions are true.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"I find them silly"

the best evidence for non-believers is knowledge:  the intertwineness and profoundness of the scripture, the limitations of physical laws, etc

[Franzl]

"I find them silly"

the best evidence for non-believers is knowledge:  the intertwineness and profoundness of the scripture, the limitations of physical laws, etc

Not evidence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"I find them silly"

the best evidence for non-believers is knowledge:  the intertwineness and profoundness of the scripture, the limitations of physical laws, etc

Not evidence.

Indeed, the ability of people to take random facts as an evidence of God's existence is one of the most saddening things I've seen.

[Gustaf]

The more advanced philosophical proofs are philosophically interesting. The more sophisticated varieties of the ontological argument, for example, can be discussed at great length and it requires a bit of schooling in logic to tackle it correctly.

I personally don't think of God's existence as something that can be determined objectively but I don't find the notion of trying to be intrinsically silly.

[afleitch]

I personally don't think of God's existence as something that can be determined objectively but I don't find the notion of trying to be intrinsically silly.

I would argue that it could be determined objectively as the basis of the existance of a god/gods rests on human assertion alone. Those who assert must prove.

[Gustaf]

I personally don't think of God's existence as something that can be determined objectively but I don't find the notion of trying to be intrinsically silly.

I would argue that it could be determined objectively as the basis of the existance of a god/gods rests on human assertion alone. Those who assert must prove.

It depends on what one means, of course. There is, of course, a correct answer to the question "Does God exist?"

One can of course believe oneself to know what this answer is. Other people can then find this to be more or less valid. Theists will tend to say yes, atheists will say no and both will think the other faction doesn't get it. Of course, you can claim epistemological superiority if you like. I just meant that I don't. I'm a sort of meta-meta-philosophical relativist in that regard.

[John Dibble]

The arguments to prove god(s) exist range from logically fallacious to inconclusive at best, the latter often requiring a flexible definition for god.

The best arguments against might be logically consistent and correct for some god frameworks, but not others. I don't really feel they are reliable except in those aforementioned cases. Ultimately the lack of evidence for gods is the best reason not to believe in them.

[Gustaf]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

[John Dibble]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

[Gustaf]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

I suspect that if you knew what I was talking about you would realize that your analogy is pretty irrelevant. Old, debunked theories is a whole other issue.

Whenever someone, without any expertise in a field, claims that a leading figure in that field has no idea what they're talking about I'm more inclined to take that as a sign of ignorance from the amateur than from the renowned expert. You're entitled to think that invalid, of course, but I disagree there.

[afleitch]

The idea of a god(s) is a very extraordinary claim to make today. It was perhaps not so extraordinary several hundred and certainly several thousand years ago due to the limitations of human knowledge (however arguments against the existance of a supernatural explanation was argued even then). It just so happens that the majority, if not supermajority of adherants to religion adhere to a faith that is hundred/thousands of years old. Not surprisingly religions that have sprung up more recently and invent a deity or deal with supernatural concepts tend to be taken less seriously. However they can still have an appeal; it is worth noting for example that $cientology has probably racked up more followers in it's first 50 years than Christianity did in it's first 50.

And what of Zeus and Wotan? Christians for example don't argue that these gods are not 'real' because the claims made for them, and their authority and power have proven to be false; they claim they are not real because they believe their god is the correct and only god therefore other gods are disproven. So Zeus cannot have came to Leda in the form of a swan and impregnated her, but Mary could have been conceived without intercourse and through a 'holy spirit.'

Therefore extraordinary claims are merely 'nudged aside' by other extraordinary claims. They argue the non existance of a whole host of gods my arguing in favour of the existance of one. And of course, dozens if not hundreds of competing claims still exist.

[John Dibble]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

I suspect that if you knew what I was talking about you would realize that your analogy is pretty irrelevant. Old, debunked theories is a whole other issue.

Well, you mentioned someone many people consider the "greatest mind of the 20th century" and something about the ontological argument. Many people have made that argument and it has remained unconvincing, so could you do us all a favor and just tell us who and what you're talking about? Being cryptic and mysterious really isn't helpful to this kind of discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I do agree that the opinions of real experts should generally receive higher consideration than that of a layperson in their particular fields, but how does one show one's expertise in regards to theology? I mean certainly someone might show that they have a lot of knowledge about theological subjects, but I don't know if that would make someone an expert in this context. For instance I know quite a bit about the facts of evolutionary theory, but that does not put me on par with someone like Richard Dawkins who is a professional evolutionary biologist. Real experts are people that are intimately familiar with the subject matter and can use their knowledge and experience to show the results of what they work on.

So in regards to theology, one might have a lot of knowledge about theological history and ideas, but is that enough to be an expert in that field? What else is required? It seems to me that the so called experts in theology certainly can't be compared to experts in scientific disciplines who are required to produce evidence for their claims. At best, the theologians have come up with arguments for gods that aren't entirely logical and have little to no practical use. Given that, I'm not really seeing a good reason to take their expertise as something that sets their claims above those made by others.

[Gustaf]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

I suspect that if you knew what I was talking about you would realize that your analogy is pretty irrelevant. Old, debunked theories is a whole other issue.

Well, you mentioned someone many people consider the "greatest mind of the 20th century" and something about the ontological argument. Many people have made that argument and it has remained unconvincing, so could you do us all a favor and just tell us who and what you're talking about? Being cryptic and mysterious really isn't helpful to this kind of discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I do agree that the opinions of real experts should generally receive higher consideration than that of a layperson in their particular fields, but how does one show one's expertise in regards to theology? I mean certainly someone might show that they have a lot of knowledge about theological subjects, but I don't know if that would make someone an expert in this context. For instance I know quite a bit about the facts of evolutionary theory, but that does not put me on par with someone like Richard Dawkins who is a professional evolutionary biologist. Real experts are people that are intimately familiar with the subject matter and can use their knowledge and experience to show the results of what they work on.

So in regards to theology, one might have a lot of knowledge about theological history and ideas, but is that enough to be an expert in that field? What else is required? It seems to me that the so called experts in theology certainly can't be compared to experts in scientific disciplines who are required to produce evidence for their claims. At best, the theologians have come up with arguments for gods that aren't entirely logical and have little to no practical use. Given that, I'm not really seeing a good reason to take their expertise as something that sets their claims above those made by others.

The ontological proof of God's existence has nothing to do with theology. It's a logical argument and the most convincing version was formulated by Gödel who was arguably the greatest logician in history, hailed by many (such as Einstein) as the greatest mind of the last century.

This obviously doesn't prove God's existence, but since I've attended a 2-hour seminar devoted solely to discussing Gödel's proof (and also done a course in logic where he obviously was one of the main topics) I can't take someone seriously who without any knowledge in the field outright dismisses it as silly. For me, that rather proves that that person is quite ignorant on the subject.

The big difference as regards Newton consists of two aspects - first of all Newton was a physician not a chemist, so his faulty views on chemistry are to be expected. Secondly, he lived a long time ago and even most of his physics have been debunked by later science (such as Einstein). Gödel on the other hand was acting within his field of expertise and his contribution to logic remains the cornerstone of all modern logic (something I happen to know because I studied it).

I don't necessarily agree that everyone's opinion is as valid as that of an expert even in theology, but I'm aware that I'm in the minority there.

[afleitch]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

I suspect that if you knew what I was talking about you would realize that your analogy is pretty irrelevant. Old, debunked theories is a whole other issue.

Well, you mentioned someone many people consider the "greatest mind of the 20th century" and something about the ontological argument. Many people have made that argument and it has remained unconvincing, so could you do us all a favor and just tell us who and what you're talking about? Being cryptic and mysterious really isn't helpful to this kind of discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I do agree that the opinions of real experts should generally receive higher consideration than that of a layperson in their particular fields, but how does one show one's expertise in regards to theology? I mean certainly someone might show that they have a lot of knowledge about theological subjects, but I don't know if that would make someone an expert in this context. For instance I know quite a bit about the facts of evolutionary theory, but that does not put me on par with someone like Richard Dawkins who is a professional evolutionary biologist. Real experts are people that are intimately familiar with the subject matter and can use their knowledge and experience to show the results of what they work on.

So in regards to theology, one might have a lot of knowledge about theological history and ideas, but is that enough to be an expert in that field? What else is required? It seems to me that the so called experts in theology certainly can't be compared to experts in scientific disciplines who are required to produce evidence for their claims. At best, the theologians have come up with arguments for gods that aren't entirely logical and have little to no practical use. Given that, I'm not really seeing a good reason to take their expertise as something that sets their claims above those made by others.

The ontological proof of God's existence has nothing to do with theology. It's a logical argument and the most convincing version was formulated by Gödel who was arguably the greatest logician in history, hailed by many (such as Einstein) as the greatest mind of the last century.

This obviously doesn't prove God's existence, but since I've attended a 2-hour seminar devoted solely to discussing Gödel's proof (and also done a course in logic where he obviously was one of the main topics) I can't take someone seriously who without any knowledge in the field outright dismisses it as silly. For me, that rather proves that that person is quite ignorant on the subject.

The big difference as regards Newton consists of two aspects - first of all Newton was a physician not a chemist, so his faulty views on chemistry are to be expected. Secondly, he lived a long time ago and even most of his physics have been debunked by later science (such as Einstein). Gödel on the other hand was acting within his field of expertise and his contribution to logic remains the cornerstone of all modern logic (something I happen to know because I studied it).

I don't necessarily agree that everyone's opinion is as valid as that of an expert even in theology, but I'm aware that I'm in the minority there.

Im am aware of Godel and I'm glad you confirmed that's who you were referring to. However, and again to touch on something I posted earlier, what leads you as a Christian (or at least a member of the Church of Sweden ) to accept the Christian god and revelation exclusively (if indeed you do; you've never really explained your religious views but nore are you required to) over any other god or gods?

The idea of a god because logic requires one is not completely outwith the realms of thinking, but how can you make 'the leap of faith' that attaches you to one god over the countless other possibilities?

[Gustaf]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

I suspect that if you knew what I was talking about you would realize that your analogy is pretty irrelevant. Old, debunked theories is a whole other issue.

Well, you mentioned someone many people consider the "greatest mind of the 20th century" and something about the ontological argument. Many people have made that argument and it has remained unconvincing, so could you do us all a favor and just tell us who and what you're talking about? Being cryptic and mysterious really isn't helpful to this kind of discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I do agree that the opinions of real experts should generally receive higher consideration than that of a layperson in their particular fields, but how does one show one's expertise in regards to theology? I mean certainly someone might show that they have a lot of knowledge about theological subjects, but I don't know if that would make someone an expert in this context. For instance I know quite a bit about the facts of evolutionary theory, but that does not put me on par with someone like Richard Dawkins who is a professional evolutionary biologist. Real experts are people that are intimately familiar with the subject matter and can use their knowledge and experience to show the results of what they work on.

So in regards to theology, one might have a lot of knowledge about theological history and ideas, but is that enough to be an expert in that field? What else is required? It seems to me that the so called experts in theology certainly can't be compared to experts in scientific disciplines who are required to produce evidence for their claims. At best, the theologians have come up with arguments for gods that aren't entirely logical and have little to no practical use. Given that, I'm not really seeing a good reason to take their expertise as something that sets their claims above those made by others.

The ontological proof of God's existence has nothing to do with theology. It's a logical argument and the most convincing version was formulated by Gödel who was arguably the greatest logician in history, hailed by many (such as Einstein) as the greatest mind of the last century.

This obviously doesn't prove God's existence, but since I've attended a 2-hour seminar devoted solely to discussing Gödel's proof (and also done a course in logic where he obviously was one of the main topics) I can't take someone seriously who without any knowledge in the field outright dismisses it as silly. For me, that rather proves that that person is quite ignorant on the subject.

The big difference as regards Newton consists of two aspects - first of all Newton was a physician not a chemist, so his faulty views on chemistry are to be expected. Secondly, he lived a long time ago and even most of his physics have been debunked by later science (such as Einstein). Gödel on the other hand was acting within his field of expertise and his contribution to logic remains the cornerstone of all modern logic (something I happen to know because I studied it).

I don't necessarily agree that everyone's opinion is as valid as that of an expert even in theology, but I'm aware that I'm in the minority there.

Im am aware of Godel and I'm glad you confirmed that's who you were referring to. However, and again to touch on something I posted earlier, what leads you as a Christian (or at least a member of the Church of Sweden ) to accept the Christian god and revelation exclusively (if indeed you do; you've never really explained your religious views but nore are you required to) over any other god or gods?

The idea of a god because logic requires one is not completely outwith the realms of thinking, but how can you make 'the leap of faith' that attaches you to one god over the countless other possibilities?

That's obviously a pretty big can of worms to open up. The short answer is probably that I don't think that matters very much - I'm a member of the Church of Sweden, well, because when I was born one was automatically made a member in Sweden.

I don't think someone born in another country and thus becoming a member of another church is a heretic. I view all religions as attempts to interpret one divine truth and I think some of them come closer than others. I do think Christianity comes the closest which I why I've decided to stay, but the choice of a specific set of religious beliefs isn't really something I place great weight on.

I don't know if that answers your question, if it doesn't feel free to ask for elaboration.

[afleitch]

What is amusing is that the proof I mentioned was constructed by what many people consider the greatest mind of the 20th century. Of course, the posters of Atlasia know enough to outright dismiss it as silly.

Blame the flawed poll - there's no option for total disagreement without calling them silly.

However, appealing to the intelligence of those who came up with the arguments isn't valid either. Being a great mind does not make everything one touches golden, something I'm sure Isaac Newton was dissapointed about not being able to do in his studies on alchemy.

I suspect that if you knew what I was talking about you would realize that your analogy is pretty irrelevant. Old, debunked theories is a whole other issue.

Well, you mentioned someone many people consider the "greatest mind of the 20th century" and something about the ontological argument. Many people have made that argument and it has remained unconvincing, so could you do us all a favor and just tell us who and what you're talking about? Being cryptic and mysterious really isn't helpful to this kind of discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I do agree that the opinions of real experts should generally receive higher consideration than that of a layperson in their particular fields, but how does one show one's expertise in regards to theology? I mean certainly someone might show that they have a lot of knowledge about theological subjects, but I don't know if that would make someone an expert in this context. For instance I know quite a bit about the facts of evolutionary theory, but that does not put me on par with someone like Richard Dawkins who is a professional evolutionary biologist. Real experts are people that are intimately familiar with the subject matter and can use their knowledge and experience to show the results of what they work on.

So in regards to theology, one might have a lot of knowledge about theological history and ideas, but is that enough to be an expert in that field? What else is required? It seems to me that the so called experts in theology certainly can't be compared to experts in scientific disciplines who are required to produce evidence for their claims. At best, the theologians have come up with arguments for gods that aren't entirely logical and have little to no practical use. Given that, I'm not really seeing a good reason to take their expertise as something that sets their claims above those made by others.

The ontological proof of God's existence has nothing to do with theology. It's a logical argument and the most convincing version was formulated by Gödel who was arguably the greatest logician in history, hailed by many (such as Einstein) as the greatest mind of the last century.

This obviously doesn't prove God's existence, but since I've attended a 2-hour seminar devoted solely to discussing Gödel's proof (and also done a course in logic where he obviously was one of the main topics) I can't take someone seriously who without any knowledge in the field outright dismisses it as silly. For me, that rather proves that that person is quite ignorant on the subject.

The big difference as regards Newton consists of two aspects - first of all Newton was a physician not a chemist, so his faulty views on chemistry are to be expected. Secondly, he lived a long time ago and even most of his physics have been debunked by later science (such as Einstein). Gödel on the other hand was acting within his field of expertise and his contribution to logic remains the cornerstone of all modern logic (something I happen to know because I studied it).

I don't necessarily agree that everyone's opinion is as valid as that of an expert even in theology, but I'm aware that I'm in the minority there.

Im am aware of Godel and I'm glad you confirmed that's who you were referring to. However, and again to touch on something I posted earlier, what leads you as a Christian (or at least a member of the Church of Sweden ) to accept the Christian god and revelation exclusively (if indeed you do; you've never really explained your religious views but nore are you required to) over any other god or gods?

The idea of a god because logic requires one is not completely outwith the realms of thinking, but how can you make 'the leap of faith' that attaches you to one god over the countless other possibilities?

That's obviously a pretty big can of worms to open up. The short answer is probably that I don't think that matters very much - I'm a member of the Church of Sweden, well, because when I was born one was automatically made a member in Sweden.

I don't think someone born in another country and thus becoming a member of another church is a heretic. I view all religions as attempts to interpret one divine truth and I think some of them come closer than others. I do think Christianity comes the closest which I why I've decided to stay, but the choice of a specific set of religious beliefs isn't really something I place great weight on.

I don't know if that answers your question, if it doesn't feel free to ask for elaboration.

So effectively you believe that the terrifying chosen totem god of a semi-literate iron age desert people which two thousand years decided to send a troublesome carpenter (with a limited grasp of the essentials such as why fig trees don't produce fruit at certain times of the year) who was rude to his forgetful mother, told his followers to have no care for the future and made statements that we would now consider morally dubious who people then claimed died, then lived then flewup into the sky never to be heard from again (and I am putting it that crudely on purpose) is the closest to a 'divine truth'?

But of course you should acknowledge that 'coming close' isn't good ehough. If you don't get the god right and you don't act in the right manner you get eternally damned by this entity. If it turns out Allah was the correct answer you and I are both equally f-cked. You don't get a free pass for getting 'half-way there.'

I think if I had to worship anything it would be the sun. Not only was it's effects awe inspiring to someone thousands of years ago we now know the matter that created us is the same matter that existed at the birth of the solar system and the sun, which itself came to be because previous stars exploded. That is pretty awesome even to me

[Gustaf]

To answer your question, no, that's not what I effectively believe.

I never said I took everything in the Bible at face value, so I'm not really related to the strawman you just struck down.

[feeblepizza]

Option 1 (I find them silly).

It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of some distant, impossible-to-please authority figure like God. That's why most Christians I've talked to, when asked to prove the existence of God, say that they just have the faith that he's there without really needing to find facts on either side of the debate.

[John Dibble]

The ontological proof of God's existence has nothing to do with theology. It's a logical argument and the most convincing version was formulated by Gödel who was arguably the greatest logician in history, hailed by many (such as Einstein) as the greatest mind of the last century.

I'm sorry, but once you start involving God you're going into theology. That you also involve logic doesn't change that. Things can involve more than one field of study.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And again, I never said it's silly - I said the damn poll is flawed because it doesn't have a good option for disagreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Expertise does not make one correct on all matters regarding their area of expertise just as much as being a great mind doesn't make one always right. If Gödel's logic here was truly sound then his argument would be the one that most theologians would use, but it isn't, and I imagine that this is because other experts in the field have sufficiently shown it to be flawed in some form or fashion. (I haven't studied it enough in detail to openly criticize, but I think I may see the problems looking at other discussions on it)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said everyone's opinion is as valid as that of an expert - rather I stated the opposite. My criticism is that theologians can't seem to produce any results in regards to showing evidence for the existence of deities, and as such they could hardly be considered experts in that regard. On the other hand a theologian might be an expert in knowledge about religious ideas and history, and in those matters what they have to say should be taken as an expert opinion.

[Gustaf]

Your description of theology doesn't seem to be entirely consistent throughout your post. Gödel's proof certainly has nothing to do with "religious ideas or history" which is what you define as theology towards the end, yet you claim he is concerned with theology.

I don't find that semantic debate to be particularly interesting though, to be honest. I guess that if you want to dismiss everything concerning God as theology, that's your prerogative.

I should add that I'm not claiming Gödel's proof is flawless or anything. Merely that it is sufficiently complex and interesting to warrant more than being dismissed as silly. 

[John Dibble]

Your description of theology doesn't seem to be entirely consistent throughout your post. Gödel's proof certainly has nothing to do with "religious ideas or history" which is what you define as theology towards the end, yet you claim he is concerned with theology.

Is Gödel's proof not an idea? Does it not have a religious component?

[Gustaf]

Your description of theology doesn't seem to be entirely consistent throughout your post. Gödel's proof certainly has nothing to do with "religious ideas or history" which is what you define as theology towards the end, yet you claim he is concerned with theology.

Is Gödel's proof not an idea? Does it not have a religious component?

If you consider defining the term "God" semantically (though one can argue that it is more of a stipulative definition as a religious idea, then I guess. But one need not know anything at all about religion or religious history to follow Gödel's proof. It doesn't require having ever heard of Jesus, the Bible or any such thing. In fact, it arguably doesn't require one to have ever heard of the concept of God or of religion before.

[afleitch]

To answer your question, no, that's not what I effectively believe.

I never said I took everything in the Bible at face value, so I'm not really related to the strawman you just struck down.

I wasn't intentionally building a straw-man. You have said vry little about what you believe. What struck me is that you considered Christianity the closest to a 'divine truth'.

What I was most curious to know about (and I too have studied Godel) is why you believe that to be so, given that some of the opposition to Godels argument have came from Christians (Catholics in aprticular) who would consider that if taken to a logical conclustion, Godels argument is contrary to the concept of the Christian god.

I certainly don't think anyone is trying to deny that Godel's argument has no relevance. Of course it does; but there are also equally robust and valid arguments against it, which (and to keep it brief) simply charge Godel with comparing 'apples and oranges' or relying somewhat on intuition rather than evidence collection and study (I defer to Galen Strawson on this)

It is ultimately, for all it's complexities still an argument a priori on the necessity of god. It leads to circular reasoning, which itself stems from a constructed assertation (i.e god is possible). Saying that 'god is possible' introduces into the realms of possibility a human notion (god) and that 'it is possible.' Godels argument can still fail on this basis.

As a follower of Hume I'm not going to be easily persuaded by Godel's argument