– The basic modal logic K is sufficient for proving T1, C and T2.
– Modal logic S5 is not needed for proving T3; the logic KB is sufficient.
– Without the first conjunct φ(x) in D2 the set of axioms and definitions
would be inconsistent.
– For proving theorem T1, only the left to right direction of axiom A1 is needed.
However, the backward direction of A1 is required for proving T2.
So, does god exist or not? Can anyone proficient in symbolic logic translate this for us?
As someone who's read the first 2/3 of GEB at least twice, I'm planning to reorganise my entire worldview around this.
Like you, I've read the first 2/3 of GEB at least twice. I've also read the novels Rymdväktaren (The Space Guardian) and Nyaga by Swedish author Peter Nilson, which centers around the idea that the main protagonists, mathematical mastermind Diana Emerson and her companion Peter Lorentzen, successfully implements the proof in a supercomputer, giving rise to lots of adventures and mysteries.
Great books, unfortunately never translated from Swedish. The story is also about whether information can be destroyed, which of course was a hot question around the time of Nilson writing the books (they were released in the first half of the 90s, I think).
A little deviation, but I just wanted to underline how strongly I feel, again like you, to bring this into my worldview! I need to study the scriptures! :-D
>> Does an omnipotent being exist in a heaven above? Not literally, no.
Can you prove that an omnipotent being doesn't exist? You make a statement of fact without any backup evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is impossible to prove or disprove, using the material world we're a member of, the existence of an omnipotent being who lives outside of this material world.
As someone who's read the first 2/3 of GEB at least twice, I'm planning to reorganise my entire worldview around this.