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?
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."
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.