Lean verification registry · Authored proofs · The Logos Architecture
Written formal sequents verified
Axiom-free: true · 1 checked theorem statements.
Lean establishes the listed formal statements and dependencies. The exact authored source, Ground, known premise meanings, application validation and empirical evidence remain separately typed. No unencoded section is certified by a neighboring theorem.
Original source author: Maclain Hunter. Machine formalization: Replit Agent. No original wording was rewritten.
Source registered: 2026-10-02T18:23:08.583Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:37:30.960Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: a16cce40a52cdd179ec1202bc4a935e1b261fecb0f65c3eba5b82775cf012657
Lean source · Verification JSON · Exact archived source JSON · Compiler report · Current authored source page · Signed release and verification instructions
Lean (version 4.7.0, commit v4.7.0, Release) exitCode=0 'HunterAuthored.inference_1' does not depend on any axioms
{P, P -> Q, Q -> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)
Exact source sequent under finite two-valued propositional semantics. Source proposition meanings and Logic/Logos/God Ground are preserved separately; this checks the inference, not unencoded prose.
Atheism’s Self-Refuting Reality by Maclain Hunter
Abstract: An atheist said to me, and I quote, “Theism is delusion. Atheism is reality. I'm obviously the more logical one cuz I can differentiate between make believe vs reality.” This is of course an absurdity but it reveals a sound argument against atheism that leverages the fact atheism exists as a part of Reality (God - Logos - Objective Order) to show how it is, as a piece of God, self-refuting.
Premises:
P: Reality and Reality’s Logic (the Logos) are the True God and the Supreme Existence (the Ultimate Being aka God), which defines Truth (by definition) and what is or isn’t Moral.
Q: Atheism exists as an aspect of Reality and thus an aspect of God, providing evidence against its own premise (that it is rational to disbelieve in God, even when God is defined as the Logos and the Source of Atheism itself).
R: It defies Logic to posit that we can differentiate between Reality (God - Logic) and fiction without Logic (or God, or Reality). Logic is essential to knowing fake from real and God from “not God” (or “Reality from what is not Reality” in other words).
S: Assume the negation of the premises P, Q, and R. This assumption leads to logical contradiction as it would mean, among other irrational and contradictory things, that atheism could exist and Reality could exist, as realities (within the broader Reality defined by Logic), without Reality or any sort of Ultimate Reality (Supreme Being or God) existing. If atheism is Reality then atheism is God and atheism shows itself, as a doubt of or disbelief in any God or gods, to be an absurdity, like a statement that states, “this statement doesn’t exist”.
Logical Argument:
{P, P -> Q, Q -> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)
Conclusion: {P, Q, R, S}:
Atheism existing as any sort of Reality proves that Reality (and by proxy Reality’s Logic aka God) exists. If Atheism were the highest Reality, and the most valid kind of Existence then it would be the Supreme Being (God) and would refute itself even more than it already does by being “a reality” and a mere part of the Supreme Being (Ultimate Reality - Logos) - the One True God.
Atheism would have to be nonexistent (or inconsistently extant) to avoid being proof, in this way, of God. Even then it “being what it is” would be enough to use atheism to demonstrate Identity (Logos - God), so atheism is an untenable position to hold logically, and irredeemably so (as defined in the dictionary as the lack of belief in any God or gods). All attempts to refute this proof would rely necessarily on the Logic (Logos - God) that is actually #1 in/as the Logical (or “Natural”) Order itself, thereby showing that Logic must ultimately be respected as God (the Supreme Entity in Reality).
Truth Table Analysis:
PQRS⎪P P→Q Q→R R↔S╞(P&Q)&(R&S)
TTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT T TTT
TTTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF TTT F TFF
TTFT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT F FFT
TTFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF TTT F FFF
TFTT⎪T TFF FTT TTT TFF F TTT
TFTF⎪T TFF FTT TFF TFF F TFF
TFFT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF F FFT
TFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF TFF F FFF
FTTT⎪F FTT TTT TTT FFT F TTT
FTTF⎪F FTT TTT TFF FFT F TFF
FTFT⎪F FTT TFF FFT FFT F FFT
FTFF⎪F FTT TFF FTF FFT F FFF
FFTT⎪F FTF FTT TTT FFF F TTT
FFTF⎪F FTF FTT TFF FFF F TFF
FFFT⎪F FTF FTF FFT FFF F FFT
FFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFF F FFF
Q.E.D.