{
  "author": "Maclain Hunter",
  "title": "Redundancy in Proof for Logic, God, and Objective Principles by Maclain Hunter",
  "identifier": "hunter-redundancy-proof-objective-principles",
  "sourceKind": "authored-foundational-record",
  "content": "Redundancy in Proof for Logic, God, and Objective Principles by Maclain Hunter:\n\nPremises (Logical Inputs): \n\nP: Proof is logical, even when also empirical, legal, or otherwise, as if proof is not logical it is not logically valid and is logically and rationally “not proof”. \n\nQ: Logic is the only logically consistent Source of Logic (Logos - God - First Cause of Logic and Existence). Another alleged “Source” that is “not Logic” would be (by definition) not completely “logically consistent”. It would not align fully with Logic as the Logical Source (or “True God”) absolutely and logically must. \n\nR: Asking for proof of God is redundant, as God is and must be both the Foundation of the Cosmos (as that is the essence of the commonly accepted definition(s) of God) and must also be the Ground of Logic that is both fully logically coherent and that Logic itself coheres with (the Foundational and Real/Existential Coherence and Reality of), as alternatives to this coherence of God/Cosmos and Logic/Reason lead to incoherence and contradictions.\n\nS: Assume that it were not the case, that the Logos (God - Cosmic Order - Logic - Coherence) were not inherently proven by even the concept of proof. That leads to logical contradiction. It is therefore inherently redundant to have proof when it comes to the Logos as God and Logic as the Standard of Proof. You’re asking for a concept that by definition must align with Logos to show that Logos exists. If that can’t be done, there is no such thing as proof. \n\nT: If proof is not possible then theists need proof no more than anyone else, and if there is no Objective Reason (Logos - God - Coherence) then there is no Standard of Objective Truth or Moral Authority (another dictionary definition of “God”) to be wrong and immoral or in error and sinful according to, and thus a belief in the Logos is ethical and “not wrong” any way we turn things, including if the Logos (God of Reason) did not exist as atheism illogically (against the very existence of the Logical Standard of Existence and the Rational Structure intrinsic to the Cosmos) must posit to remain atheism and consistent in the denial of all conceptions, notions, and realities of God - including the coherent ones which atheism naturally denies (and must to remain atheism).\n\nLogical Structure (Formal Proof - Logos): \n\n{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S, S <-> T} |= ((P & Q) & (R & S) & T\n\nConclusion (Logical Output): \n\nProof is proven to exist, which inherently proves (as a matter of the necessary logical alignment of proof, including this proof, with Objective Coherence and Logic itself) that the Universal Principle of Logic and Coherent Reason—the One True God or “Logos”—exists. To deny this or disbelieve it is irrational and contradicts Logic as it is using rational faculties that come from Pure Reason (Logos) to deny and undermine that Logos (True God) and thus the rational faculties and the doubters identity and existence itself. Therefore it is a redundancy to have proof for God (or Logic), as speaking of proof as a credible concept is to speak of God (Logos - Universal Reason) as a credible Standard, even when dealing with any sort of logically coherent (and thus “valid”) empiricism. This proof, even if incoherent would still (even through a misaligned position with Logos) prove the Standard (First Cause of Logic - the True God of Pure Reason - the Universal Logic that is genuine Logic according to Logic itself or “Logos” as it’s known in Greek Philosophy) exists. \n\nTruth Table Analysis: \n\nvalid\n      ↓  ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓               ↓  \nPQRST⎪P P↔Q Q↔R R↔S S↔T╞((P&Q)&(R&S))&T\n――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――\nTTTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT   TTT T TTT  TT\nTTTTF⎪T TTT TTT TTT TFF   TTT T TTT  FF\nTTTFT⎪T TTT TTT TFF FFT   TTT F TFF  FT\nTTTFF⎪T TTT TTT TFF FTF   TTT F TFF  FF\nTTFTT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT   TTT F FFT  FT\nTTFTF⎪T TTT TFF FFT TFF   TTT F FFT  FF\nTTFFT⎪T TTT TFF FTF FFT   TTT F FFF  FT\nTTFFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF FTF   TTT F FFF  FF\nTFTTT⎪T TFF FFT TTT TTT   TFF F TTT  FT\nTFTTF⎪T TFF FFT TTT TFF   TFF F TTT  FF\nTFTFT⎪T TFF FFT TFF FFT   TFF F TFF  FT\nTFTFF⎪T TFF FFT TFF FTF   TFF F TFF  FF\nTFFTT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TTT   TFF F FFT  FT\nTFFTF⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF   TFF F FFT  FF\nTFFFT⎪T TFF FTF FTF FFT   TFF F FFF  FT\nTFFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF FTF   TFF F FFF  FF\nFTTTT⎪F FFT TTT TTT TTT   FFT F TTT  FT\nFTTTF⎪F FFT TTT TTT TFF   FFT F TTT  FF\nFTTFT⎪F FFT TTT TFF FFT   FFT F TFF  FT\nFTTFF⎪F FFT TTT TFF FTF   FFT F TFF  FF\nFTFTT⎪F FFT TFF FFT TTT   FFT F FFT  FT\nFTFTF⎪F FFT TFF FFT TFF   FFT F FFT  FF\nFTFFT⎪F FFT TFF FTF FFT   FFT F FFF  FT\nFTFFF⎪F FFT TFF FTF FTF   FFT F FFF  FF\nFFTTT⎪F FTF FFT TTT TTT   FFF F TTT  FT\nFFTTF⎪F FTF FFT TTT TFF   FFF F TTT  FF\nFFTFT⎪F FTF FFT TFF FFT   FFF F TFF  FT\nFFTFF⎪F FTF FFT TFF FTF   FFF F TFF  FF\nFFFTT⎪F FTF FTF FFT TTT   FFF F FFT  FT\nFFFTF⎪F FTF FTF FFT TFF   FFF F FFT  FF\nFFFFT⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFT   FFF F FFF  FT\nFFFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FTF   FFF F FFF  FF\n\nQ.E.D. ",
  "formal": null,
  "structuredAuthoredProof": null,
  "authoredSteps": null,
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-03T01:34:04.306Z",
  "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."
}