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

[Christoph Benzmueller]

Dear all,

sorry ... I just saw that the url/link to the following paper was imprecise
(leading to the journal homepage and not directly to the paper itself),
here is the precise one:

Computer-supported Analysis of Positive Properties, Ultrafilters and Modal
Collapse in Variants of Gödel's Ontological Argument.
<https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/bulletin/article/view/7976>Benzmüller, C.,
& Fuenmayor, D. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 49(2): 127-148. 2020.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.2020.08

Best wishes,
     Christoph

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Christoph Benzmueller <
c.benzmueller at fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> 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
> *https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdf*
> <https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdf>
>
>
> 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. *
> <https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/bulletin/>*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. *
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358607847>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. *
> <https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2020/80>*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.
> <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zygo.12830>*Benzmüller,
> C. *Zygon(r)*,1-9. 2022.
>
>
> Preprints for download of my papers can generally be found at
> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christoph_Benzmueller
>
>
> (Btw: Reading the papers above you will be able to answer also J.
> Shipman's comment)
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>    Christoph
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 03:38, Schaefer, Marcus <MSchaefer at cdm.depaul.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that a weakness in Gödel's proof had been
>> found by Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel Paleo  (
>> https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdf),
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: FOM <fom-bounces at cs.nyu.edu> On Behalf Of JOSEPH SHIPMAN
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:03 PM
>> To: Alexander M Lemberg <sandylemberg at juno.com>
>> Cc: FOM at cs.nyu.edu
>> 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/20221110/25057ee1/attachment-0001.html>