God from Various Lenses — Philosophy, Science & Mathematics
A general inquiry space: evaluate conceptions of the Divine through philosophical, scientific, and mathematical lenses — not only inherited belief systems.
What this section asks
Belief traditions preserve living practice. This section asks a parallel question: if we treat “God” as a concept humans reason about, how do philosophy, mathematics, cognitive science, and comparative models clarify what we mean — without dismissing devotion?
Tradition tells us how communities worship. Lenses help us name what is being claimed — about infinity, morality, mind, and relation — so inquiry and faith can sit side by side.
Five lenses
Select a lens — the panel follows
ॐLenses
Philosophical
Ontology, theodicy, and attributes of the Absolute
Classical theology and darśana already ask: Is God one or many? Form or formless? Creator or ground of being? Evil as rival power, privation, or appearance? This lens maps those claims as explicit axes — so comparison is precise, not polemical.
When traditions say “infinite,” mathematics asks: unrestricted Absolute Infinity, or a relative infinity assumed inside a larger frame? Ontological boundary diagrams treat divine claims as set-theoretic pictures — clarifying scope without reducing God to a number.
Mind, symbol, and finite interfaces to the infinite
Cognitive science and semiotics ask how a finite mind tracks meaning: icons, murtis, and sacred forms can function as interfaces — not as “idols” in a pejorative sense, but as structured attention toward what exceeds sensory grasp.
Beyond abstract attributes, lived devotion is relational. The prism lens maps how maternal, marital, friendship, healing, and stewardship bonds become metaphors — and sometimes training grounds — for relating to the Divine.
Comparative inquiry places Hindu frameworks beside other theisms and earth-honoring paths. The goal is shared structure — axes, Venns, prisms — so dialogue can be specific. Living practice remains the primary home of each tradition.