Kurt Godel's Ontological Argument

What are your thoughts on Kurt Godel's Ontological Argument:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

After reading your book Logical Fallicious, you classified Anselm's OA as a use-mention error. However, is God first an object or a person? Personal agency cannot exist without an object (value) to which it is relative towards... A noun like love wouldn't necessarily require agency as love is a sentiment (feeling). However, doesn't reason (which is not a sentiment) require a relation to an agent and therefore an agent require an object to which it is relative towards?

** EDIT: This answer is based on me misunderstanding the argument. See the comments below for more details. **

An attempt to define God into existence. Or more specifically, the whole argument rests on a subjective understanding of "positive," which leads to Circular Reasoning in believers. Jealousy, commanding the killing of gays, genocide... all "positive" because they are said to be properties of God. And since God, by definition, must be all-good (i.e., have positive properties), these properties are seen as positive—at least in God. And because "his ways are not our ways," Special Pleading allows believers to admit these properties are not good in others and maintain some semblance of their humanity.

I'll stop there at the first definition because the argument already failed.

I've long thought Godel was a potent realist/reasoner, but demur without denying this tldr (my problem, not yours or his) presentation.  I reply to ensure other answers will show up for the life of the question.

That said, my bias is not against Godel, but against any (or anyone's) logic that seeks to prove the existence of God or god or gods, by appeal to logic alone.

It's an amusing concept, don't you think?

EDIT "amusing"?  Can't recall why I said that, so I took it out.