> selective, loaded definition of "god"

Well, you can't really win here. It's either a hand-wavey definition you could never formally prove, or a rigid, 'loaded' definition.

That said, the basis of the proof does seem to be that 'if god exists, then he must exist', which is not really groundbreaking.

> That said, the basis of the proof does seem to be that 'if god exists, then he must exist', which is not really groundbreaking.

Actually, its "if god must exist, he exists".

IMHO what Godel's 'proof' boils down to is that if it is possible for God to exist, then God must exist. The discussion of possible worlds is an attempt to strictly formalize and make consistent the argument that it's possible for God to exist.