It's not proof. The fact that the Fibonacci sequence pops up in nature has just given rise to a slew of theories and ideas that have nothing to do with proof or fact. The same applies to the Higgs boson, which is viewed (or at least was advertised extensively by the media for a while) as the physics equivalent of proof of God ("the god particle").

"The God particle" was a joke name, the name was never meant to be linked to God (other than it being goddamn hard to find / important). Anyone linking it to God is doing so based just on this joke name, which is entirely backwards.
It's the same with numerical patterns, they're starting at the wrong end, without understanding, which makes the pattern mysterious, then claim mystery = God... If you start from the bottom up, you see why the pattern emerges (such as the rabbits above, or the geometry of petals, or whatever) then you've got a logical and boring explanation for why you should see some pattern at a macro level, and there's no mystery beyond the psychology behind human proficiency of spotting patterns and searching for meaning in cooincidences...

That is pretty spot-on. Such as the 80 - 20 rule in economics, weird how it happens.

Hay, guiz. r we arguing religion again?

Hay, guiz. r we arguing religion again?

Jein

Fibonacci sequence describes number of pairs of rabbits which exist assuming they start breeding after 1 generation and there are no deaths

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibrab.gif

Therefore, dogs can play tennis. QED.

I agree cuz cute bunny drawings.

...snip...

So let me get this straight...

You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."

Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

where exactly is that "turning around"? if he's rejecting the idea of god in favor of math in both scenarios, isn't that staying on the same ideology concept?

No. It's conceptually bankrupt and thus hypocritical. That's why I was bringing it up. The existence of mathematics does not prove or disprove the existence of God. There are two ways of criticizing "Math, therefore God.":

1) Humans invented mathematics in order to describe certain aspects of the world. It would make as much sense to say, "English, therefore God."

2) Mathematics exists without difficulty in either a theistic or atheistic framework. It is not related to the existence of God.

Both criticisms apply equally to the notion that math proves atheism.

The Fibonacci sequence occurs in nature because it's a naturally occurring sequence. That sounds circuitous, but it's the simple fact of the matter. Humans "invented" the sequence because we saw it in nature. Nature didn't invent it because it saw someone write it on a chalkboard.

This kind of sensationalistic nonsense panders to ignorance from both sides of whatever bizarre debate is going on in people's minds. I'm sure in a few years some idiot will claim that the internet proves that God exists and then someone else will say that the internet proves that God doesn't exist. It's stupid. It's choosing a side in lieu of thinking.

...snip...

So let me get this straight...

You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."

Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

where exactly is that "turning around"? if he's rejecting the idea of god in favor of math in both scenarios, isn't that staying on the same ideology concept?

No. It's conceptually bankrupt and thus hypocritical. That's why I was bringing it up. The existence of mathematics does not prove or disprove the existence of God. There are two ways of criticizing "Math, therefore God.":

1) Humans invented mathematics in order to describe certain aspects of the world. It would make as much sense to say, "English, therefore God."

2) Mathematics exists without difficulty in either a theistic or atheistic framework. It is not related to the existence of God.

Both criticisms apply equally to the notion that math proves atheism.

The Fibonacci sequence occurs in nature because it's a naturally occurring sequence. That sounds circuitous, but it's the simple fact of the matter. Humans "invented" the sequence because we saw it in nature. Nature didn't invent it because it saw someone write it on a chalkboard.

This kind of sensationalistic nonsense panders to ignorance from both sides of whatever bizarre debate is going on in people's minds. I'm sure in a few years some idiot will claim that the internet proves that God exists and then someone else will say that the internet proves that God doesn't exist. It's stupid. It's choosing a side in lieu of thinking.

I'm glad someone else gets it too. Mathematics, Physics, and all scientific formulas and equations are formulated by men to explain and exploit nature. They are tools of the trade. They don't prove nor disprove the existence of God. It only describes the nature or the universe we live in.

I had a similar discussion with a friend about this. He argued that men attributes all things mysterious to God. He was right. Cavemen thoughts that volcanoes erupted because the God or gods were angry. Now that we understand volcanoes, God was removed from the volcano equation. Now, we still attribute all things mysterious to God. God's particle. Fibonacci is God. Because we have yet understood what they are! He then argued that if we could understand anything in the universe, then there's no more God.

Then I said to him, even if mankind are capable of understanding the universe at their smallest forms to the largest forms, that still does not prove nor disprove God. It's more like "Congratulations, you have mastered the Universe! [--But God is in another castle?]"

Attempting to prove or disprove God through scientific methods is useless.

So let me get this straight...

You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."

Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

But he didn't say that. He said "prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow". Not that god doesn't exist, but that any god doesn't have anything to do with the patterns that we observe.

So let me get this straight...

You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."

Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

But he didn't say that. He said "prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow". Not that god doesn't exist, but that any god doesn't have anything to do with the patterns that we observe.

Where is this contradictory to what I'm saying, please?

So let me get this straight...

You reject the idea "Math, therefore God."

Then you turn around and posit the idea "Math, therefore not God."

But he didn't say that. He said "prove to me that god dosen't have anything to do with how, we, and many things in nature, are form and grow". Not that god doesn't exist, but that any god doesn't have anything to do with the patterns that we observe.

Where is this contradictory to what I'm saying, please?

Well, where did he say "Math, therefore not God."? Or otherwise suggest that "math proves atheism" as you say in your later comment?

Ya might want to crack open a copy of Plato some time. You know, the guy whence came the concept of platonic solids. He knew a bit about mathematics and the perceived divine perfection of creation.

Aquinas would also be a good read if you want questions about absolute and logical proof of the divine.

In fact, if you're going to wax philosophical, you would do well to read what other people have had to say over the last 7000 years or so. If nothing else, it would help you sleep and provide plenty of topics for cocktail-party conversations. Maybe even open your mind to completely new ideas.

Just saying.