You obviously missed Descartes' major point. It was that there is perfection in nature that humans cannot ever understand. That is proof of God's perfection. Descartes major theme is that he is proving the existence of God. In fact, Descartes rejects the possibility that nature (as we understand it) exists. But not God.
Until you define what you mean by God it is hard to know what you are talking about.
This impossibility of complete understanding is what we now understand in terms of nervous system computation. That is much more recent. Many of us came to that conclusion about 50 years ago, but it did not become settled until the last decade or two. We are still learning and there is a lot more to learn, but brain computation is fundamentally different from what you were taught in school -- based on Von Neumann / Turing models. The correct computation appears to be what is called "enhanced Perceptron models." Silva's theoretical work (http://www.silva.ucsd.edu/)
is some of the best. He is showing such models which require no training to learn and remember.
His "perceptrons" are described as 'edge oriented and edge length' (propagation delay). He is on medium.
All of these models implement unary predication quite simply in terms of layers of such models. Predication itself, which can be seen in human natural language, has the property of never ever being complete about a subject. There are always more predications (an infinite number) that may be true or false and empirically confirmed one way or another. And, importantly, reversed, with another unary predication (what was true is now a lie, and vice versa).
Descartes was, hauntingly, right. He made the case basically the same way except he made his cases with less evidence than we have today. 500 years ago there was a lot more science to do to get to the point where the computational neuroscience proved his conclusions were right. There is a perfection to nature that humans are incapable of understanding completely. But, we can always expect to see more of it, the more we look, if we look scientifically. The trick is objective measurement which anybody can replicate and show is true for themselves.
i.e., modern science. Theory is about predicting measurements that we have yet to measure.
Hypothesis means something in science. I do not have a clue what "god hypothesis" means. Please define your "god". (Again, I, and Descartes, and many others like us, have defined ours with clarity.)
Descartes proved the existence of God by his own, repeated claim. His proof goes on many many pages in great detail and with an amazing set of arguments that assumed reality (nature) can only be known by humans through the human mind ("I think therefore I am"). And the inherent limitations due to this limitation means there is a perfection in nature that humans will never fully grasp. (Or, put another way, grasp in a way that every other human will be satisfied is completely correct.) This is what Descartes proves is God. Our brains simply cannot see the perfection of God. Period.
So no. Descartes was proving the "god hypothesis" that he, and many other of the natural philosophers of his day and throughout history, have believed is true. Nature is God, and God does not lie.
You are proving that pretty clearly with your "word games". But then, as we know today, "word games" is all a human has. Here is how your brain works with words...by the modern science...