A simplified variant of Kurt G\"odel's modal ontological argument is presented. Some of G\"odel's, resp. Scott's, premises are modified, others are dropped, and modal collapse is avoided. The emended argument is shown valid already in quantified modal logic K. The presented simplifications have been computationally explored utilising latest knowledge representation and reasoning technology based on higher-order logic. The paper thus illustrates how modern symbolic AI technology can contribute new knowledge to formal philosophy and theology.

Three variants of Kurt G\"odel's ontological argument, as proposed byDana Scott, C. Anthony Anderson and Melvin Fitting, are encoded and rigorously assessed on the computer. In contrast to Scott's version of G\"odel's argument, the two variants contributed by Anderson and Fitting avoid modal collapse. Although they appear quite different on a cursory reading, they are in fact closely related, as our computer-supported formal analysis (conducted in the proof assistant system Isabelle/HOL) reveals. Key to our formal analysis is the utilization of suitably adapted notions of (modal) ultrafilters, and a careful distinction between extensions and intensions of positive properties.

G\"odel's ontological proof has been analysed for the first-time with an unprecedent degree of detail and formality with the help of higher-order theorem provers. The following has been done (and in this order): A detailed natural deduction proof. A formalization of the axioms, definitions and theorems in the TPTP THF syntax. Automatic verification of the consistency of the axioms and definitions with Nitpick. Automatic demonstration of the theorems with the provers LEO-II and Satallax. A step-by-step formalization using the Coq proof assistant. A formalization using the Isabelle proof assistant, where the theorems (and some additional lemmata) have been automated with Sledgehammer and Metis.