The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well.

Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one."

Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers.

God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved.

You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem.


You've mede a few assumptions here.
I'm not anti-assumption

First I am not the author of this article. I posted it for reference.
I assume you agree with the article indirectly if you are posting it. Your opinions stated below agree with that assumption

Second, you did not comprehend the reasoning behind the article because it has the same logic and reasoning used by the scientific community. Science relies on proof and not just 'how things work for practical purposes'. Yet, there are scientific theorems (as mentioned above) that are solidy relied on without proof.
nothing is absolutely certain in science

As a non-believer (athiest) one is expected to accept that the universe (world) just came into being without a source for its inception. Yet daily, in life, every change (creation, destruction, altercation) in a state of being or entity or atom has specific reasoning due to science. Basically, scientific laws exist that cause things to happen a certain way...but when it comes to the question of why do these laws exist? The answer generally in most cases ends up being "because they exists and that's that." No definitive proof of the 'why' is every addressed.

science doesn't attempt to answer the why. only the how. The existing laws work because they haven't been proven not to work (in practical uses).Science does not have all the answers. There may or may not be a theory of everything that explains everything

Looking at it scientifically as a believer in God (supreme being) the reason is simple. Because the world/universe works, changes/alters in a certain way due to interaction with other elements and scientific laws, it stands to reason that every change has purpose for the causality. Keeping that in mind, it is rather strange for me to just accept the fact that the universe/life came into being without a specific originator and a purpose and reason of origin. The universe life all exists based on complex scientific laws and theorems yet why these laws exists and not to address the question of who originated them is rather 'unscientific' in my view.

science only attempts explaining how things work. It doesn't know (yet or maybe ever) the original conditions of how things were. I'm sorry your ideas of science were misguided.Science does not know all of the laws or theorems.