Coherence is the condition that makes reasoning possible. It ensures that thought is not merely a chain of assertions but a structure in which each link sustains, and is sustained by, the others. Properly understood, coherence is recursive: it extends forward into conclusions and backward into foundations. If the base is incoherent, no degree of downstream alignment can rescue the structure; the apparent stability of the edifice collapses under scrutiny because its first principles cannot sustain universal evaluation.
The image of a ladder helps clarify this point. Each rung represents a step in reasoning; an observation, an inference, or a conclusion. To climb upward requires every rung to hold, to descend requires that each step remain traceable to foundations that can bear weight. If a rung fails, the ladder must be retraced to the point of failure, the weakness corrected, and the ascent rebuilt.
Crucially, coherence works both ways: it must support the climb upward into complex reasoning and the climb downward into foundational verification. A ladder that only allows ascent but cannot bear descent is structurally unsound. Modern discourse loudly promotes coherence but simultaneously breeds dissonance, casting it off into distant abstractions where it no longer anchors thought in reality. It promotes what can be called “coherence in a silo,” where reasoning holds within a given framework but severs its accountability to a universal foundation. Within the silo, the system works, it can generate predictions, procedures, and even immediate forms of coherence. But the moment it is tested against universality, “Does this hold outside of the framework? What secures it beyond its own terms?” it collapses into circularity.
This is why relativism, the claim that each person has “their truth,” is not a harmless pluralism but a structural error. A truth confined to a silo is not truth at all; it is preference given the veneer of coherence. Once competing frameworks collide, there is no means of adjudication except power. This is why “my truth” so often becomes “my dominance.” What begins as tolerance ends as the surrender of coherence, leaving conflict to be resolved not by truth but by manipulation, consensus, or force.
The consequences are visible in contemporary debates over human rights. On the surface, rights are treated as self-evident. Yet if rights are nothing more than social constructs, they can be redefined whenever the balance of power shifts. One society may declare freedom of speech a right; another may abolish it in the name of security. Both frameworks may appear consistent internally, yet when challenged, “Why does this right hold for all people, at all times?”neither can provide a foundation beyond the will of the majority or the force of the state. Without a universal anchor, coherence collapses at the very point it is most needed, when protecting the dignity of the powerless against the powerful.
Tautology explains why this collapse recurs so often. A tautology is a statement true only by definition, such as “a bachelor is an unmarried man.” Harmless and useful in logic, tautology becomes disastrous when inflated into worldviews. When rights are declared “self-evident,” freedom is defined simply as “freedom,” or “love is love,” the framework survives only by reflexivity, not grounding. It appears coherent within its silo, but the moment it is pressed for universal accountability, its circularity is revealed. At the existential level, atheism becomes tautology at scale. By declaring there is no transcendent anchor, it closes the circle of coherence at its widest edge. This creates dissonance at the foundational level, precisely where reasoning matters most: when questions of being, value, and ultimate accountability arise. In moments of fear, anger, or crisis, the ladder of coherence is cut off, leaving individuals to default to their own biases, their group identity, or the dictates of power. Coherence collapses, and survival replaces truth. What looks like freedom, being bound to no higher order, becomes entrapment in the very structures of dominance one believes oneself freed from.
Science itself illustrates how overarching assumptions are selectively deployed: narratives are framed to breed dissonance and skepticism by dropping coherence both at first principles and at the edge of consciousness. Consider absolute zero. It is widely treated as an empirical fact, yet it has never been observed or proven. It is a theoretical placeholder, an asymptotic concept. Yet when the objective constant is raised, it is loudly dismissed precisely because it cannot be empirically proven just the same. Both concepts are unobserved, both not empirically proven, but one is embraced and promoted as fact in Wedtern discourse because it sustains the narrative of closure, while the other is rejected because it destabilizes it. Absolute zero thus becomes a myth of nothingness, deployed to normalize the idea that closure at the edge of reality is both inevitable and rational. But coherence requires the opposite: that reasoning remain open-ended, infinitely sustainable, never collapsing into circularity. The necessity of a transcendent constant follows directly. For coherence to remain sustainable both upward and downward, the ladder must rest on something beyond the set of rungs it supports. Otherwise, reasoning reduces to closure, and closure breeds dissonance.
This is not a mystical claim but a logical one: if every rung depends on another rung, then the structure cannot ground itself if a rung is left in midair, no matter how far away. A foundation outside the set is necessary. Here the universal axiom is revealed: God. God is the constant that secures coherence not from within the circle but from beyond it. By functioning as the irreducible anchor, God makes coherence infinitely sustainable, ensuring that objective reason is not trapped in silos but open-ended, recursive, and universally tenable.
The conclusion is unavoidable. A society that accepts coherence in silos but severs it from universality will collapse into relativism, where truth dissolves into preference and preference into power. Tautology at scale may sustain temporary systems, but it fails at the level of being itself.
To secure coherence, both for thought and for existence, a constant must anchor the ladder from beyond the circle. For this anchor to be sufficient, it must meet certain non-negotiable criteria:
Singularity – The anchor cannot be one among many; otherwise, coherence fragments across competing absolutes. It must be singular to guarantee impartiality.
Universality – It must apply equally to all beings, at all times, in all contexts, or else coherence collapses into relativism.
Independence – It must stand outside the pool of contingent subjects; if it is dependent on what it grounds, it fails as a foundation.
Recursivity – It must allow reasoning to extend upward into complex thought and downward into foundational verification, without ever collapsing at any point within the chain.
Sustainability – It must keep coherence infinitely attainable, never terminating in dissonance at the edge of thought or existence.
Accountability – It must bind both the individual and the collective, protecting reason from being reduced to preference or overrun by dominance.
Only the objective God, the monotheistic God, fulfills these conditions. God is not one contingent rung but the ground of the entire ladder, the constant that secures coherence from beyond the circle and dynamically sustains it at every step, ensuring that coherence remains attainable both in foundation and in progression. By functioning as the irreducible anchor, God makes coherence infinitely sustainable, ensuring that human reason is not trapped in silos but open-ended, recursive, and universally tenable.
Without this foundation, coherence collapses, reason falters, and truth is reduced to the will of the strongest. With it, coherence becomes infinitely attainable, dynamically sustainable, and universally guaranteed.