Huh, framed like that, that seems like a wild statement considering he later went on to formulate his ontological “proof”, which attempts to prove God’s existence without relying on axioms (and in my not-so-humble opinion fails to do so, because it assumes “good” and “evil” to exist).

But what I’m reading about his incompleteness theorems, it does seem to be a rather specific maths thing, so would’ve been a big leap to then be discouraged in general from trying to do proofs without axioms.

I don’t know much about this, but I can’t help but think that “complete” and “consistent” are doing a lot more work in that sentence than my current understanding of the terms would lead me to believe.