# A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument

skunsss
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-10-10
Offline
A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument

The authors investigated the ontological argument computationally. The premises and conclusion of the argument are represented in the syntax understood by the automated reasoning engine PROVER9. Using the logic of definite descriptions, the authors developed a valid representation of the argument that required three non-logical premises. PROVER9, however, discovered a simpler valid argument for God's existence from a single non-logical premise. Reducing the argument to one non-logical premise brings the investigation of the soundness of the argument into better focus. Also, the simpler representation of the argument brings out clearly how the ontological argument constitutes an early example of a ?diagonal argument? and, moreover, one used to establish a positive conclusion rather than a paradox.

------------

Theists new argument- AI proofs  god existence   .   Any critics  ?

Zaq
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
Offline
Anyone care to translate the

Anyone care to translate the argument back into english?

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
LMAO.What a stupid

LMAO.

What a stupid assumption. Duh, geee, let's insert "god" in to an ATP and prove that god exists.

This isn't science, this is FAIL.

When I was reading the initial link, I immediately went to the section as follows:

#### Definition of "God"

We defined "God" ("g&quot in our original paper as follows:

g   =df   ιxφ1

Since PROVER9 doesn't have primitive descriptions, we defined God as follows in PROVER9 syntax:

` Is_the(g,none_greater)`

I then substituted "god" for [what ever the fuck I wanted] and WHAM...  instant success.

See, they created the outcome and then substituted their "belief for a big fart in the sky" as "g".

x
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
Offline
Fortunately, the answer is in the paper

The authors of this are not actually trying to prove that God exists, they are just trying to simplify the argument.

states:

It found a proof from Premise 2, the definition of God, and Description Theorem 2.

Premise 2 asserts:

if that than which nothing greater is conceivable fails to exist, something greater than it is conceivable.

Description Theorem 2, which asserts:

if something is the F, then anything that is the F exemplifies F.

Finally, we defined ‘God’ ( g ) to be the conceivable thing such that nothing greater is conceivable:

Their conclusion is:

Consequently, though the simplified ontological argument is valid, Premise 2 is questionable and to the extent that it lacks independent justification, the simplified argument fails to demonstrate that God exists.

The use of computational techniques in systematic metaphysics has illuminated the relationship between Premise 2 of the ontological argument and the conclusion that God exists.

is an excellent summary of the history of this argument and also discusses various objections.