Disclaimer: 

Before I start, I would like to say that to the best of my knowledge, this argument is original to me and that I intend to publish it eventually. Other theists feel free to use this argument in private settings, but please be honest and source me (and allow me to publish it eventually. This argument has taken me quite some time to assemble.) Also please inform me if it is actually not original. 

Oh, atheists, I am posting this here to see how this argument stands up to something approaching real scrutiny. I'm just as much after valid criticisms as anything else (and if this argument is a doozy, I would like to know that, too and why.) 

Also, this argument isn't a "proof of God" so much as it is an argument against the alternative.
 

Sources: Wikipedia (for initial drafting purposes only) and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) Considering how famous Gödel’s Theorems of Incompleteness are (and how differently different sources phrase them) feel free to note that this work is improperly cited. The only reason I don't cite from the horse's mouth is that I can't read German (I've read that Gödel was reluctant about several translations of his own work.)\

OUTLINE:

Part 1: The Argument

Introduction

Section 1: Gödel’s First Theorem of Incompleteness

Section 2: Gödel’s Second Theorem of Incompleteness

Section 3: Applying "God" as a Completion of Physics and Logic

Part 2: Foreseen Criticisms and Rebuttals:

Section 1: Preventing Ad Infinitum Regressions

Section 2: Is the Application of Gödel’s Theorem to Physics/Logic a Valid Application?

Section 3: Can Quantum Mechanics Create an Exception?

 

Introduction 

If the observable universe was created by non-teleologically based forces, then it follows that our own reason would be self-attesting. I have argued (at length) with Todangst over this point. Likewise, if the universe itself were a collection of forces acting with no teleological intention, it follows that those forces themselves are self-attesting. 

By contrast, IF the observable universe was created by a force with teleological intention, it follows that neither logic, nor the forces of the universe itself would be self-attesting. 

Begin with the following assertion assumed to be true "Physics itself is complete [regardless of the state of our understanding of it.]" also known as Leplace's Demon.

 

Section 1: Gödel’s First Theorem of Incompleteness:

 

"If [system] P is ω-consistent, then there is a sentence which is neither provable nor refutable from P." (From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

Starting from this, we see that in terms of formal provability, neither the functions of logic nor the forces of the universe can account for themselves. Assuming that all that is is physical, then in the realm of logic, we see that logic will produce true statements that are not provable within logic itself. Ergo far from being "self-attesting" logic cannot even prove all statements it regards as true to be true (and is therefore incomplete.)

 Things do not improve when this is applied to the physical forces. Again, we can see that there will be statements regarded as true that cannot be proven as true within the realm of the physical forces.

But, if all that is is physical, then it is impossible for a true statement to not be provable by the forces of physics. There is no higher axiomatic system to invoke given monistic materialism.

 

 Section 2: Gödel’s Second Theorem of Incompleteness

 

 "If P is consistent, then Con(P) is not provable from P." (from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 Applying this to logic and physical forces, it can be seen that it is logically improper to even use logic or the forces of physics as their own proof-system. They are incurably incomplete.

(This can be seen even more clearly with the Wikipedia wording.)

 

 Section 3: Applying "God" as a Completion of Logic and Physics

For the sake of argument, define "God" as "a substance that has no place, mass, charge, or other means of direct physical influence, y exerts physical effects."

 

Importing "God" into Logic allows logic to function consistently; under the pretext that logic itself is understood to be incomplete. The same holds true for physical forces. Statements that were true, but could not be proven in either system can now be proven by importing "God." Indeed, a view of either physics or logic without "God" (or an analogous feature) is inescapably either incomplete (the first theorem of incompleteness) or is inconsistent (the second theorem of incompleteness.)

 

 

Part 2: Foreseen Criticisms and Rebuttals

 

 

Section 1: Preventing Ad Infinitum Regressions.

 

"God" completing logic and physics is all well and good, but what system will complete the axioms that "God" cannot possess? Is there an axiomatic system higher than God, even?

 

In this feature, this argument is analogous to the first cause argument, with the definite exception that a stop is possible in this case. There are at least two solutions that both stop Gödel’s Theorems from applying to everything in sight. One is that "God" Himself has a multiplicitous nature; the other is that "God" is not able to be logically probed.

 

Assuming "God" has a multiplicitous nature, then we are not looking at a singular entity, but rather several peer entities. Assuming that no one entity of God has a total axiomatic solution, then it follows that the statements that cannot be proven in one entity are provable in the other and vice-versa. This solution is admittedly circular, but both Gödel’s Theorem and "God's" finality are satisfied.

 

Conversely, it is possible that "God" is just not logically able to be probed. This solution explains that Gödel’s Theorem no longer applies to "God," but gives no specific mechanism on how it no longer applies.

 

 

Section 2: Is the Application of Gödel’s Theorem to Physics/Logic a Valid Application?

 

The wikipedia entry on Gödel’s Theorems of Incompleteness has an entry that reads as follows:

 

"Stanley Jaki followed much later by Stephen Hawking and others argue that (an analogous argument to) Gödel's theorem implies that even the most sophisticated formulation of physics will be incomplete, and that therefore there can never be an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles, known for certain as "final".

 

I have not traced the citations given to credible citations:

 

Jaki: http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/JakiGodel.pdf

Hawking: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/

 

Given that Gödel’s Theorem explicitly applies to any system that involves arithmetic (beyond "the most trivial systems&quot it follows that all symbolic mathematics (including logic) follow suit. It also follows that physics itself follows suit insofar as it is modeled via mathematics.

 

Presently I see no reason why it should not apply, so I see no reason to compartmentalize my understanding of the universe.

 

 

Section 3: Can Quantum Mechanics Create an Exception?

 

All this "Importing 'God" business is complicated, not to mention suspicious. Is it possible that we can invoke quantum unpredictability to assert that the universe itself is inconsistent within bounds?

 

Quantum mechanics is not "inconsistent within bounds" it is not predictable beyond probabilities. It is still computable and, like all the other laws of physics discussed here, modeled with mathematics on the assumption of consistency.