The fallacy of Godel's argument is that it assumes there are necessary truths in the physical world and there is not the slightest proof that there is. There are necessary truths in abstract thought--I'll buy that--but I can't go along with the necessary truths existing in the physical world. I can't think of one. Anything in the physical world is simply the way it is and nothing more. To say there is a truth, i.e. a thought construction, behind it is presupposing the existence of god and that is loading the argument. A true argument has to start from scratch and arrive at a conclusion logically. Godel doesn't do that. I don't care how smart he was was. Has nothing to do with anything. He saw what he wanted to see and smart people are certainly not immune from that.