You are talking past the comment you are replying to, and Goedel's argument altogether. That is, you are referring to an entity that may have contradictory properties in the way you mentioned, but Goedel's philosophical God isn't such an entity.
> Else it's just a new arbitrary definition of an entity, which they called "God" but could just as easily have called "Bob" or "Jane".
It exactly is arbitrary. The argument works for every referent that satisfies the properties.
>You are talking past the comment you are replying to, and Goedel's argument altogether. That is, you are referring to an entity that may have contradictory properties in the way you mentioned, but Goedel's philosophical God isn't such an entity.
Which is the point exactly. Even if Goedel's argument didn't have logical jumps based on non-essential assumptions, it still doesn't prove the existence of God per se, only the existence of something Goedel calls God, which satisfies Goedel's axioms ("every referent that satisfies the properties").
But the problem is that Goedel doesn't say he tries to prove the existence of "any referent that satisfies the properties" but of God.
Well, who (apart from Goedel himself) said that those are the properties of God, and not others?
You mean the God of your religion. If Goedel believed his argument that would make him a kind of deist.
> Even if Goedel's argument didn't have logical jumps based on non-essential assumptions
Goedel's argument is tight given the axioms, though. It's been formally verified.
The God that you mention that may have contradictory properties isn't that interesting for logical analysis, since it's likely that logicians only want to consider "Gods" whose existence do not render useless their logical system (contradiction leads to the principle of explosion). Hence you won't find primarily logical works discussing such a God.
> which satisfies Goedel's axioms
to be pedantic, his "God" doesn't satisfy Goedel's axioms, his "God" satisfies his definition of "God". Then the argument has that you accept its existence once you accept the axioms of the argument.
> Well, who (apart from Goedel himself) said that those are the properties of God, and not others?
Well, in most cultures, you call a kind of sufficiently magical or spiritual or ineffable entity a god. Nobody has a monopoly on the word "God", and many cultures use the word to refer to entities unrecognizable as the one you call God.
> Else it's just a new arbitrary definition of an entity, which they called "God" but could just as easily have called "Bob" or "Jane".
It exactly is arbitrary. The argument works for every referent that satisfies the properties.