Re: [EXT] Re: Odifreddi: Gödel's proof of the existence of God

Christoph Benzmueller c.benzmueller at
Thu Nov 10 06:13:02 EST 2022

Dear Marcus, all,

Short answer/comment (to a more complex story):

Gödel’s original axioms for the 1970 script are inconsistent, but Dana
Scott’s variant is not suffering from this (the notion essence was slightly
changed by Dana); this is what we (collaboration of myself with Bruno
Woltzenlogel Paleo)  reported  in

We also formalised/checked other variants of Gödel’s argument that have
been suggested e.g. by Fitting and Anderson & Gettings; these variants
avoid modal collapse (which Dana Scott’s variant implies); our findings on
these variants are reported in the following papers:

*Computer-supported Analysis of Positive Properties, Ultrafilters and Modal
Collapse in Variants of Gödel's Ontological Argument. *
<>*Benzmüller, C., & Fuenmayor, D.
Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 49(2): 127-148. 2020. *

More recently the argument was further simplified (and maybe it got too
simple now?):

*A Simplified Variant of Gödel's Ontological Argument. *
<>Benzmüller, C. In
Vestrucci, A., editor(s), *Beyond Babel: Religions in a Linguistic
Pluralism*, pages 1-30. Springer, 2023. 30 pages, to appear

This last paper is based on the following, more technical one:

*A (Simplified) Supreme Being Necessarily Exists, says the Computer:
Computationally Explored Variants of Gödel's Ontological Argument. *
<>*Benzmüller, C. In Proceedings of the
17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and
Reasoning, KR 2020, pages 779–789, 9 2020. IJCAI organization *

Finally, a more more general discussion on the ontological argument (and
symbolic AI) you can find in:

*Symbolic AI and Gödel's Ontological Argument.
<>*Benzmüller, C.
*Zygon(r)*,1-9. 2022.

Preprints for download of my papers can generally be found at ResearchGate:

(Btw: Reading the papers above you will be able to answer also J. Shipman's

Best wishes,


On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 03:38, Schaefer, Marcus <MSchaefer at>

> I was under the impression that a weakness in Gödel's proof had been found
> by Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel Paleo  (
> Marcus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FOM <fom-bounces at> On Behalf Of JOSEPH SHIPMAN
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:03 PM
> To: Alexander M Lemberg <sandylemberg at>
> Cc: FOM at
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Odifreddi: Gödel's proof of the existence of God
> I don’t think you can prove that!
> However, to prove that that proof is wrong, you don’t need to prove that
> the argument’s conclusion is false, you just need to prove that the
> negation of the conclusion of the argument is consistent.
> So I won’t ask for your proof of God’s nonexistence, but I WILL ask for
> your proof of the consistency of God’s nonexistence!
> — KS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20221110/02ad4444/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the FOM mailing list