Is Your "God" a Model or an Hypothesis?

[Vouthon]

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 consequen

Ah, OK that specific "crossover" application changes the premise of the discussion quite substantially, then, from what I'd understood when I first read it (I automatically, impulsively, just think in terms of the scientific employment of these words, hence my misunderstanding).

 

[Sunstone]

Ah, OK that specific "crossover" application changes the premise of the discussion quite substantially, then, from what I'd understood when I first read it (I automatically, impulsively, just think in terms of the scientific employment of these words, hence my misunderstanding).

Not your fault. But like I say, I literally don't have the time to write OPs that explain things so well there will be no misunderstandings. I am lucky enough just to get a conversation going, let alone anything beyond that.

 

[Vouthon]

Now that I'm mentally on board with the parameters of the discussion framed in the OP, I'm going to cross out my earlier response (which was operating on a mistaken scientific premise) and say that my God conception is closer to being a "model" (as defined) and that it is definitely not a hypothesis.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?


_______________________________

A model, a lot to explain too.

 

[ManSinha]

etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya
ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Know that all living beings are manifested by these two energies of mine. I am the source of the entire creation, and into me it again dissolves.

 

[sayak83]

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?


_______________________________

I am unfamiliar with the way you are defining the concept of a model and hypothesis. In science, a hypothesis is an initial tentative proposition about the state of the world that may be validated/modified/rejected by further evidence. A hypothesis is a tentative claim that, if proven to be backed by later evidence is worked out into a theory that is backed by an extensive model. Current scientific hypotheses that are yet to be rejected or worked into a fully worked out or well-validated theory/model includes things like: the Gaia hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis, the RNA world hypothesis, the multi-verse hypothesis, the anthropic hypothesis etc.


A model is, on the other hand, a fully worked out and explicit system or structure from which extensive and exhaustive predictions about the state of nature can be made. A superbly successful and exhaustive scientific model is the Standard Model of particle physics. Usually, models have a mathematical structure from which quantitative predictions can be extracted.
Both models and hypotheses can be proven to be true or false. For example, the heliocentric model is true while the geocentric model is false.

Given that your definitions are quite different from how I use these terms, I am not comfortable in explicating my understanding of God in this terminology.

 

[Windwalker]

​

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

Neither. It's purely a metaphor for the experience of Reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not have any God because I have non-duality (advaita) as my belief. I believe in one entity constituting all things in the universe (without any exception), but it is not a God. We call it 'Brahman'.

 

[Vouthon]

Given that your definitions are quite different from how I use these terms, I am not comfortable in explicating my understanding of God in this terminology

Those were my initial apprehensions too @sayak83 given that the definitions used in the OP are alien to the received application of these terms that both of us are familiar with from science.

However, once I took stock of how the terminology is actually being applied in the OP, I managed to get over my initial state of perplexity and just go with the flow, in a kind of mid-thread Dasmascus road conversion experience.

@Sunstone explained to me, further up the thread, that he was appropriating these words from their original scientific usage and applying them in a speculative manner to the inherently untestable.

And, after processing this, I'm now cool with it (sort of ).

 

[osgart]

I'm atheist but that doesn't mean I don't have a god concept. It's a model and a metaphor. So God would be the embodiment of all virtues and never wills nor desires to do else then the virtues.
Purely selfless, and righteously selfish. Knows when and when not to apply wisdom. Perfect character, perfect discretion, and perfect knowledge. Not an omnigod because if God were omnieverything we would all be in an eternal state of bliss by now reveling in virtues, or well on the way to reform.
Fully deserving, God has power with incorruptible principles. Truth is God's force and God's spirit. You can only approach God deservingly and in no other way.

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose my answer was based on my aversion calling Nirguna Brahman a god, so I often refer to it, apparently incorrectly, as a god-concept.

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"?

However, I think Nirguna Brahman can be sorted as such and fits better into a hypothesis if one is defining a 'hypothesis' as a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

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.

 

[Sunstone]

Neither. It's purely a metaphor for the experience of Reality.

Umm... a metaphor might possibly be a model -- in the sense in which "model" is being used in the OP. Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by "metaphor"?

Also, no poo-poo debating in this thread. It's a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

 

[Sunstone]

Here is one of the things I had in mind when I was cooking up this perfect little gem of an OP. I wanted some terminology for expressing how the god-concepts of (some) theists and (some) nontheists differ such that they talk past each other in their friendly and heart-warming debates.

 

[Sunstone]

I am unfamiliar with the way you are defining the concept of a model and hypothesis. In science, a hypothesis is an initial tentative proposition about the state of the world that may be validated/modified/rejected by further evidence. A hypothesis is a tentative claim that, if proven to be backed by later evidence is worked out into a theory that is backed by an extensive model. Current scientific hypotheses that are yet to be rejected or worked into a fully worked out or well-validated theory/model includes things like: the Gaia hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis, the RNA world hypothesis, the multi-verse hypothesis, the anthropic hypothesis etc.


A model is, on the other hand, a fully worked out and explicit system or structure from which extensive and exhaustive predictions about the state of nature can be made. A superbly successful and exhaustive scientific model is the Standard Model of particle physics. Usually, models have a mathematical structure from which quantitative predictions can be extracted.
Both models and hypotheses can be proven to be true or false. For example, the heliocentric model is true while the geocentric model is false.

Given that your definitions are quite different from how I use these terms, I am not comfortable in explicating my understanding of God in this terminology.

Discomfort in such cases as these is quite understandable. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[robocop (actually)]

A model, a lot to explain too.

Although my God is a person, so model might be like calling Him It.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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"?

Based on the generally accepted definition of 'god', it's incorrect to refer to Nirguna Brahman as a god. Nirguna Brahman isn't a deity, a ruler, or a creator. It has no qualities of a god.

But in the context of the definitions given for the purpose of this thread, I don't think 'god-concept' quite fits either.

So maybe, at least for the desired purposes of this thread, I should have just kept my insufferable opinions to myself.

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?

I'll give it the ol' college try, but such things are typically a challenge for me to formulate into words.

Based on my personal observations and experiences, as well as scientific evidence currently at my disposal, I've drawn tentative conclusions about the nature of my being. Therefore, Nirguna Brahman, for me, is a hypothesis of the nature of my existence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I do not have any God because I have non-duality (advaita) as my belief. I believe in one entity constituting all things in the universe (without any exception), but it is not a God. We call it 'Brahman'.

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).

 

[MNoBody]

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


_______________________________

this question seems similar to the question put to a mason whether they are speculative, or operant.

If one studies other hypothesis and forms some of their own,
they will eventually get around to building models and simulations to test them.
one finds interesting data by doing so.

thinking about making an ashlar from a chunk of raw granite is all well and good,
doing it, however is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[crossfire]

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.

 

[Sunstone]

But in the context of the definitions given for the purpose of this thread, I don't think 'god-concept' quite fits either.

Agreed. The term "god-concept" certainly does not fit the term "Nirguna Brahman" if we think of the term "god" to necessarily imply a deity, creator, or ruler.

As is my usual custom and tradition, I screwed up. I screwed up by failing to appreciate how different my definition of "god" is from that of most folk's. I honestly apologize. In this thread, I should have said "ultimate reality concepts" rather than "god concepts" to more closely convey my meaning.

By the way, I use "god" almost interchangeably with "ultimate reality" when ultimate reality is thought to be a deity (but not always a creator or ruler.) And I use "ultimate reality" when ultimate reality is not necessarily a deity. And I use "twenty pounds" to refer to two pounds when referring to bass.

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