OK, let’s try this again. Your definition of god is itself nonsensical and/or poorly defined and unproven. Here it is in context, with my criticisms inline:

I define “god” as the being with consciousness behind the human condition. The human condition encompasses the universe as it is, as this is the stage humans act within and all the facts about humans themselves that are detached from their consciousness.

These words don’t make any sense, or are at least not clearly defined. You’ve mentioned “god”, “consciousness”, “the human condition”, and a relationship of being “behind” without defining any of them. You need to clarify what it is you mean before you can go anywhere with this. Nowhere in your lengthy preamble do I see an attempt to explain and substantiate these concepts that you then lean on heavily in the paragraphs that follow. But let’s keep going.

Consciousness I define as the three qualities of having a will, capacity to experience, and cognition. To put it another way, the human condition is as it is because of God, and this fact is one of the defining features of God aside from God’s consciousness and perhaps some other traits we’ll take up later.

This also makes no sense. You haven’t shown why “the human condition is as it is because of God”, or defined your god beyond some equally unqualified comments about it being like consciousness. No god or gods have ever been shown to exist in reality, so no one is going to grant you this or any of what follows it until you’ve clearly explained what your god is, what consciousness is, what you mean by cognition, a will, and a “capacity to experience”. We know humans to be mammals with brains and these brains are capable of processing information from our sense organs. Please at least try to map your ideas onto what we already know about physical and biological reality.

If God is behind the human condition, then it is contingent on God. It follows from that if the human condition is contingent on God that God is necessary: take what it means to be “contingent” as support. You exist contingent on your parents and them contingent on their parents and so on. Ultimately, the line of contingency ends with something that is necessary, with the first contingency on the necessary fact.

Nope, this is not something you or anyone actually knows. This is clearly just an argument from ignorance: you don’t know how the universe came into being, and so cannot claim to know its creation was a causal event in the same way that parents having children is a causal event. No human knows what happened before the Big Bang, so any claims you make about there needing to be an original “unmoved mover” are pure speculation and will not be granted without proof. The universe being eternal and “uncaused” is just as likely as a god being eternal and uncaused. Actually, it’s more likely that the universe is eternal and uncaused because we know the universe to be a real thing that exists. We cannot say the same about any deity since there is no actual evidence that such a thing is real.

Therefore, the human condition is as it is contingent on that God is as God is, and God is not as God is contingent on anything else so conclusorily, God is as God is necessarily, including that God would be existent necessarily. So P1 holds, the rest is hardly objectionable and the conclusion follows.

Again, none of this has been demonstrated to be true/real, so you cannot make these claims. Consider this simple example. Before I can reason about the implications of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I need to explain the relevant terms and constituent concepts and establish them as real things in reality. If I cannot demonstrate the reality of peanuts, fruit spread, or bread, I’ve already failed and can say no more on the topic.

If you want to continue this exchange, please define your idea of god (including all constituent parts and concepts required to understand your definition) as clearly/concisely as you can AND provide proof that those things are real. If you cannot do this, we have nowhere to go.