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.
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.
Edited by alnite, 14 April 2013 - 01:57 AM.