{
  "author": "Maclain Hunter",
  "title": "God’s Rational Existence and Definition by Maclain Hunter",
  "identifier": "hunter-god-rational-existence-definition",
  "sourceKind": "authored-foundational-record",
  "content": "God’s Rational Existence and Definition by Maclain Hunter: \n\nPremises: \n\nP: My God & The God: the Origin of Existence; the Logos; the Pure Validity and Universal Coherence of the Universe that, through its tautological nature is the “Universal Mind” (coherent Reason and reasoning in and as the non-dual Reality);The Coherent Origin of the Cosmos found in the Coherence of Reality, Logic, and Coherence itself.\n\nQ: Undefined God(s): if God’s (or a set of gods’) definition and nature remains undefined and ambiguous, rather that being a matter of Pure Reason and alignment (of God and the theory/understanding of God) with Coherence itself, then this God or gods’ existence(s) necessarily remains logically contingent (until terms are defined rationally and God is understood coherently).\n\nR: No God: if God is defined as nothing then God would not exist, as nothing is nothing and nonexistence (nothing) cannot exist, however this definition of God could not then coherently also be defined as the Origin of the Universe or Logos since God in that traditional sense (reflected in foundational English dictionaries like the OED and Webster’s). \n\nS: Illogical God or Origin: if God (or the Origin of Logic and Existence) is defined as nonsense or something illogical (including but not limited to mythological gods) then God would not coherently exist, as illogic is not coherent and nonsense (or what is illogical) cannot exist as a logically sound Foundation (God) for the Cosmos, however this incoherent type of definition of God could not then coherently also be defined as the Origin of the Universe or Logos since God in that traditional sense (reflected in foundational English dictionaries like the OED and Webster’s). \n\nT: Assume the negation of the premises P, Q, R & S. This leads to logical contradiction and inconsistency where we either negate the rational necessity of Coherence in all things, including and especially the First Cause, or question or waver on it, as if it is uncertain when logically speaking it cannot be uncertain or any other way. Accepting the premises as rational and true is logically consistent and allows us to avoid the inconsistency that arises from the assumption of the negation of the premises. \n\nU: Addressing potential counterarguments and common arguments against God. For an atheist or critic of theism or God to argue with this God as if it is the True God defined in (or like) P would be a fallacious straw man argument, and this can be common in theological debates, along with defining God as nonsense and then arguing with that “God” instead of the God reflected in P and the Origin of Order (Logos- God) reflected in the Cosmos.\n\nLogical Argument: \n\n{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S, S <-> T, T <-> U} |= ((P & Q) & (R & S) & T) & U\n\nConclusion: {P, Q, R, S, T, U}: \n\nGod is God, and what God is defined as determines what God is and whether God exists in a rational way or as the “actual Source of Reality”, but when God is defined coherently (in a manner aligned with or literally defined as “Logic”) and as the actual Source of Reality then it becomes evident and even self-evident (tautological) that God is the Source of Reality and that both are coherent with and one with/as Logic, the Validator of Concepts and Pure Validity itself - the strongest feasible Foundation for anything, especially the Cosmos and the Foundation of the Cosmos (Logic - God) itself. \n\nDefining God as nothing (or nonsense) and deriving the nonexistence (or logical inconsistency) of this God LOGICALLY from that algebra serves as evidence of the consistency and existence of the Logic and Pure Validity that the Cosmos is necessarily based on that coherent notions and definitions of God as the First Cause must align with. It does not undermine the True God, it actually reinforces and underlines the fact that A is A and rational notions of concepts lead to real understanding of the nature of Reality and it’s “Ontological Ground” (the True God).\n\nTruth Table Analysis: \n\nvalid\n       ↓  ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓                 ↓  \nPQRSTU⎪P P↔Q Q↔R R↔S S↔T T↔U╞((P&Q)&(R&S)&T)&U\n―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――\nTTTTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT   TTT T TTT TT TT\nTTTTTF⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT TFF   TTT T TTT TT FF\nTTTTFT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TFF FFT   TTT T TTT FF TT\nTTTTFF⎪T TTT TTT TTT TFF FTF   TTT T TTT FF FF\nTTTFTT⎪T TTT TTT TFF FFT TTT   TTT F TFF FT FT\nTTTFTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF FFT TFF   TTT F TFF FT FF\nTTTFFT⎪T TTT TTT TFF FTF FFT   TTT F TFF FF FT\nTTTFFF⎪T TTT TTT TFF FTF FTF   TTT F TFF FF FF\nTTFTTT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT TTT   TTT F FFT FT FT\nTTFTTF⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT TFF   TTT F FFT FT FF\nTTFTFT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TFF FFT   TTT F FFT FF FT\nTTFTFF⎪T TTT TFF FFT TFF FTF   TTT F FFT FF FF\nTTFFTT⎪T TTT TFF FTF FFT TTT   TTT F FFF FT FT\nTTFFTF⎪T TTT TFF FTF FFT TFF   TTT F FFF FT FF\nTTFFFT⎪T TTT TFF FTF FTF FFT   TTT F FFF FF FT\nTTFFFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF FTF FTF   TTT F FFF FF FF\nTFTTTT⎪T TFF FFT TTT TTT TTT   TFF F TTT TT FT\nTFTTTF⎪T TFF FFT TTT TTT TFF   TFF F TTT TT FF\nTFTTFT⎪T TFF FFT TTT TFF FFT   TFF F TTT FF FT\nTFTTFF⎪T TFF FFT TTT TFF FTF   TFF F TTT FF FF\nTFTFTT⎪T TFF FFT TFF FFT TTT   TFF F TFF FT FT\nTFTFTF⎪T TFF FFT TFF FFT TFF   TFF F TFF FT FF\nTFTFFT⎪T TFF FFT TFF FTF FFT   TFF F TFF FF FT\nTFTFFF⎪T TFF FFT TFF FTF FTF   TFF F TFF FF FF\nTFFTTT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TTT TTT   TFF F FFT FT FT\nTFFTTF⎪T TFF FTF FFT TTT TFF   TFF F FFT FT FF\nTFFTFT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF FFT   TFF F FFT FF FT\nTFFTFF⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF FTF   TFF F FFT FF FF\nTFFFTT⎪T TFF FTF FTF FFT TTT   TFF F FFF FT FT\nTFFFTF⎪T TFF FTF FTF FFT TFF   TFF F FFF FT FF\nTFFFFT⎪T TFF FTF FTF FTF FFT   TFF F FFF FF FT\nTFFFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF FTF FTF   TFF F FFF FF FF\nFTTTTT⎪F FFT TTT TTT TTT TTT   FFT F TTT TT FT\nFTTTTF⎪F FFT TTT TTT TTT TFF   FFT F TTT TT FF\nFTTTFT⎪F FFT TTT TTT TFF FFT   FFT F TTT FF FT\nFTTTFF⎪F FFT TTT TTT TFF FTF   FFT F TTT FF FF\nFTTFTT⎪F FFT TTT TFF FFT TTT   FFT F TFF FT FT\nFTTFTF⎪F FFT TTT TFF FFT TFF   FFT F TFF FT FF\nFTTFFT⎪F FFT TTT TFF FTF FFT   FFT F TFF FF FT\nFTTFFF⎪F FFT TTT TFF FTF FTF   FFT F TFF FF FF\nFTFTTT⎪F FFT TFF FFT TTT TTT   FFT F FFT FT FT\nFTFTTF⎪F FFT TFF FFT TTT TFF   FFT F FFT FT FF\nFTFTFT⎪F FFT TFF FFT TFF FFT   FFT F FFT FF FT\nFTFTFF⎪F FFT TFF FFT TFF FTF   FFT F FFT FF FF\nFTFFTT⎪F FFT TFF FTF FFT TTT   FFT F FFF FT FT\nFTFFTF⎪F FFT TFF FTF FFT TFF   FFT F FFF FT FF\nFTFFFT⎪F FFT TFF FTF FTF FFT   FFT F FFF FF FT\nFTFFFF⎪F FFT TFF FTF FTF FTF   FFT F FFF FF FF\nFFTTTT⎪F FTF FFT TTT TTT TTT   FFF F TTT TT FT\nFFTTTF⎪F FTF FFT TTT TTT TFF   FFF F TTT TT FF\nFFTTFT⎪F FTF FFT TTT TFF FFT   FFF F TTT FF FT\nFFTTFF⎪F FTF FFT TTT TFF FTF   FFF F TTT FF FF\nFFTFTT⎪F FTF FFT TFF FFT TTT   FFF F TFF FT FT\nFFTFTF⎪F FTF FFT TFF FFT TFF   FFF F TFF FT FF\nFFTFFT⎪F FTF FFT TFF FTF FFT   FFF F TFF FF FT\nFFTFFF⎪F FTF FFT TFF FTF FTF   FFF F TFF FF FF\nFFFTTT⎪F FTF FTF FFT TTT TTT   FFF F FFT FT FT\nFFFTTF⎪F FTF FTF FFT TTT TFF   FFF F FFT FT FF\nFFFTFT⎪F FTF FTF FFT TFF FFT   FFF F FFT FF FT\nFFFTFF⎪F FTF FTF FFT TFF FTF   FFF F FFT FF FF\nFFFFTT⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFT TTT   FFF F FFF FT FT\nFFFFTF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFT TFF   FFF F FFF FT FF\nFFFFFT⎪F FTF FTF FTF FTF FFT   FFF F FFF FF FT\nFFFFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FTF FTF   FFF F FFF FF FF\n\nQ.E.D.",
  "formal": null,
  "structuredAuthoredProof": null,
  "authoredSteps": null,
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-02T16:57:33.584Z",
  "originalAuthoredAt": null,
  "propositionMeaningBoundary": "Atomic identifiers retain their meanings in the exact source. No arbitrary truth assignment establishes an ontological or empirical premise; the formal witness checks the written inference."
}