Is Your "God" a Model or an Hypothesis?

[Sunstone]

I guess mine would be a model--apophatic in nature. It would be more like a sculpture, whereby I remove unnecessary rock from the model.

Example:

"God/Holy Spirit does not overcome your mind." **Strikes the chisel with the hammer and breaks away some rock from the sculpture in progress.**

I don't know what the sculpture may end up like. I may just wind up with a pile of discarded rubble and sore hands from a lifetime of breaking rocks, but with the experience of breaking those rocks and knowing each piece of rubble for what it is.

Well put!

 

[Katzpur]

Hi! Great topic!

My concept is an unproven hypothesis, which differs somewhat from your example: God is one what in three whos. I believe Latter Day Saints hold the opposing position that God is three whos in one what.

Latter-day Saints believe that God is the entity comprised of three divine persons who, together, make up a Godhead. Any of the three can be addressed as "God" and "God" can be used to refer to any of the persons individually or to the three persons collectively.

With regards to the question posed by the OP, my God is a hypothesis, but I'm still trying to figure out who's what and what's who.

 

[SomeRandom]

Both. In scriptures “God” is supposed to be a role model. Embodying what is thought to be idealised versions of Dharma (roughly, ethical values, morality and duty to oneself, one’s family/friends and community.)
But how God is described is at best a hypothesis. Something indescribable but given form anyway.
As a way to connect us to our true inner self.

But is the goal to know god or do we reach higher?

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Latter-day Saints believe that God is the entity comprised of three divine persons who, together, make up a Godhead. Any of the three can be addressed as "God" and "God" can be used to refer to any of the persons individually or to the three persons collectively.

With regards to the question posed by the OP, my God is a hypothesis, but I'm still trying to figure out who's what and what's who.

I believe that’s what I said—three whos in one what, in other words, three gods on one Godhead.

 

[Jim]

Mine is not a hypothesis, but if it’s a model, it is not well defined and it’s different in different contexts. How I picture Him might be as a floating Wizard-of-Oz head, or some words on a page, or a bodiless booming voice, or a kind of mist. When I’m praying, I might not have any picture at all. Some of my pictures might be from paintings, and pictures in books. His personality and character range widely, for example between foolish and wise, or between cruel and kind. Maybe it’s a collection of models. I never thought of that before. Thanks for asking the question!

 

[Jim]

I think now that my God is a collection of imaginary beings that are part of a model or collection of models of the world with us in it. The collection of beings does not correspond to anything real. It’s like the voltage source, the current source and the resistor in Thevenin and Norton equivalent circuits. Together they represent the actual circuit, but separately they don’t represent anything real at all. My God is a collection of imaginary beings which are part of a collection of models picturing the world with us in it as being dynamically created by someone, like a garden park.

 

[Jim]

I'm not sure Nirguna Brahman (Ultimate Reality) would qualify as a god-concept in this context or not. If so, then Nirguna Brahman, by the definitions in the OP, would be a hypothesis.

Though I do know of some goddesses that could probably get hired on as models.

But not by the definitions in the OP.

 

[Jim]

I would not say "imply" because that might be taken to mean a model must be testable to be a model. Such might be the case in the sciences, but this is not science. In other words, in the OP, I have borrowed the terms "hypothesis" and "model" from the sciences, and then applied them to a non-scientific question or problem with the consequence that they now refer to untestable things. Perhaps I should have made that explicit. On the other hand, it is rather difficult for me to anticipate then answer every question the OP raises or is likely to raise. Even attempting such a thing would take me to set aside so much time as to seriously jeopardize what little time I have left to me these days for viewing pole dance videos.

I have no problem with applying the terms "hypothesis" and "model" to distinguish between two kinds of god-concepts because I wish to discuss their possible use in perhaps shedding light on the nature of our concepts of god, not because I wish to prove or disprove the existence of deity. In other words, I am crazy, but I am not crazy enough to think that applying the terms to categorize our concepts of deity in any way shape or form changes the fact our concepts have never been proven true or false and never will be proven true or false.

I call my God metaphorical, or part of an analogy of the world with us in it as being dynamically created by someone, like a garden park. How far the analogy goes is an open question with continually evolving answers. Currently for me, it goes so far as to include verbal communication from the creator. The purpose if the analogy for me is to help me understand and apply what some religious scriptures are saying.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It should be clarified that this is not the view of all Advaitins. There are many who identify with Advaita Vedanta that practice bhakti yoga (worship of deities).

That is true. My 'advaita' differs from most others.
And the statue I was making is complete. I have thrown away the rubble.

Also, my headache is gone. So I'm changing over from suffering to insufferable.

When the headache goes, it is enlightenment, jnana. jhana, moksha, nirvana, deliverance, you are saved.

My God is a collection of imaginary beings which are part of a collection of models picturing the world with us in it as being dynamically created by someone, like a garden park.

I know, a collection of nine men. Why play hide-and-seek? So, OK, whatever you are happy with.

 

[Jim]

Woah! Upon re-reading this, I realize I might not have understood you the first time around. Are you saying that it is always incorrect to refer to Nirguna Brahman as a "god-concept"?

I iz confused now. And my confusion is absolutely not being helped out at all by my pounding headache. Jeebers! Who would have thought that banging my head over and over again on my computer desk was a bad way to "shake lose some thoughts on the matter"?

Also, could you pretty please elaborate on that too? I'm not sure I got what you meant there, either? I mean, are you referring to Nirguna Brahman the god, or to Nirguna Brahman the god-concept?

Sorry about the use of the word "god". I, too, dislike recalling my ex.

I’m going to try framing the question differently. How much and in what ways does a person think about their god or gods as being real or actually existing? I think that for some people it’s a combination of both. They think that there really is some being corresponding to whatever they’re imagining when they think of a god or some gods, but they don’t think that those actual, real beings are exactly in every way like what they’re imagining.

As I understand it, Brahman can’t be understood in those terms at all. When people say that they believe in some god or gods, even if it’s some unthinking power or force, it’s always someone or something separate and apart from us. Brahman is not a being, power or force separate and apart from us. Brahman is a way of experiencing the world with us in it as being like a single organism in some ways. Brahman is part of a way of talking about freedom from the limitations of imagining ourselves as beings separated from each other and the world around us. In that context, Brahman is everything that exists, including us, and not someone or something separate and apart from us. Anything that actually exists or is real, is part of Brahman, by definition. Anything that we imagine that does not actually exist, is not. That has nothing to do with any creator God, or any invisible cosmic power or force outside the universe or permeating it, or any of the gods or goddesses of any religions, or anything else that I would call a God concept or god concept.

 

[Jim]

So, OK, whatever you are happy with.

Thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

The predictive function of models allows us to reason about god even though they might be unable to tell us whether god exists.

Hypotheses do not lend themselves nearly so well to that function.

 

[PureX]

Both and neither.

I have no idea what or even if God is. All I know is that trusting in something greater than myself, greater than all that is, both as an entity and/or an ideal, helps keep me sane, positive, and effective. And that's partly because I can characterize it however I want whenever I want, according to whatever I need at the time. My concern is the practice of faith, not presuming any knowledge of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anything that actually exists or is real, is part of Brahman, by definition.

I would not go into the exist/not exist part, or real or unreal part at the moment. That is still higher Religious Quantum Mechanics.
But you are getting Brahman quite correctly, I am happy that you have realized that God does not enter the equation of some people's thinking.

All I know is that trusting in something greater than myself, greater than all that is, both as an entity and/or an ideal, helps keep me sane, positive, and effective.

If it is what all is, then it is neither greater nor lesser than us, but it is simply us, or you can say what constitutes us, the substrate of the universe.

 

[Jim]

I would not go into the exist/not exist part, or real or unreal part at the moment. That is still higher Religious Quantum Mechanics.
But you are getting Brahman quite correctly, I am happy that you have realized that God does not enter the equation of some people's thinking.If it is what all is, then it is neither greater nor lesser than us.

Thanks. I think now that I missed the mark a little, as you pointed out, by equating Btahman with everything that exists. The word “Brahman” is part of a way of talking about freedom from the illusion of duality, and in that context it refers in some way to everything in the universe including us, but there might not be any way outside of that context to communicate what it means. Maybe we can only say what it is not. For example, it is not a life force that permeates everything, like qi.

 

[Jim]

If I think of experiencing the universe with us in it as being like a single living organism in some ways, then I think that would include awareness of what people are calling ”Brahman” as ... as ... ! as the substance of all that!

The substance that makes us all one?

 

[Aupmanyav]

For example, it is not a life force that permeates everything, like qi.

There is no special 'life-force' (Prana, Soul). All forms exist in their time and when their time is up change into something else. There is no end to this cycle. IMV.

"As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, it similarly accepts new forms, giving up the old and useless ones." BhagawadGita 2.22

 

[Etritonakin]

Please Note: This is a DISCUSSION thread.

State your views. Ask respectful questions. Compare and contrast. Deliver pick-up lines. Jest. Flirt. Arrange elopements.

But do NOT attempt to prove someone wrong.​

Is your concept or idea of god (as distinct from the reality of god) a model or an hypothesis? It seems to me that some of humanity's god-concepts are models and some of them are hypotheses.

An hypothesis purports to tell us that something exists. "My cat is furry." I am claiming that the nature of my cat includes fur. i.e. Fur really exists.

A model merely asserts that something is in at least one way like something (else). "My cat is like a child." I am in no way claiming that the model (a child) is what I literally mean by "my cat". I am only claiming that my cat is in at least one way similar to a child.​

Hypotheses can be thought of as either true or false. If they are true, then what they hypothesize to be the case really is the case. They cannot be proven true but they can be proven false. To prove them false, you deduce from them predictions that, depending on whether they come true or not, prove the hypotheses either "false" or fail to prove the hypothesis false (but never prove it true).

Suppose you had a trinitarian god consisting of Godel, Boole, and Euclid. If you asserted that Godel, Boole, and Euclid were literally three persons in one godhead, that would be an hypothesis.​

Models are not usually said to be true or false. Rather, they are thought of as in at least one way or another useful in making reliable predictions. The model of my cat as a child might be used to predict that my cat will be as demanding as a child. If that does indeed prove to the case, then the model is thought of as useful in predicting that sort of thing.

Suppose you had a trinitarian god consisting of Lana del Rey, Tan Weiwei, and Billie Eilish. If you asserted that it was like Lana, Weiwei, and Billie were three persons in one godhead, then you would have a model.​

So, is your god-concept a model or an hypothesis?


_______________________________

Hmmmm not sure what it would be.

I believe God is LIKE us -but all-encompassing (and we are essentially made of what God is).

I also believe God IS the eternal "everything" which exists -developing to the point of self-awareness, creativity, self-replication, etc.