Views on the golden ratio??

Freedom rocks

What are your views on the golden ratio or Fibonacci sequence? I know jws and some other groups use this as proof of gods existence. I'm still looking into the debate but was wondering what others thought

scruffmcbuff

I dont know much about fibomnaci proving god... but as i currency trader i use his retracements and expansions every day!

stillin

I don't have any real, practical use for the golden ratio, but it totally dazzles me!

notsurewheretogo

How is it proof of God's existence?

There is a ratio that exists in all living things that makes sense...1.618xxxx etc. If it were any difference we would not be here...the fact we are is not proof of God but proof that for us to exist that ratio needs to be...nothing more.

The laws of mathematics is universal and encompasses all things. But doesn't mean there is a God...just means what is is and that is the reason why it exists.

All order in the universe is evidence of, is order in the universe, it only requires set physical properties that we refer to as laws, in order to function in an ordered way.

What believers need to find is evidence for the existence of a god, that cannot be interpreted in any way except by the existence of a god, then they need evidence that it's their god, not any of the many other gods from other faiths.

I'm afraid "I believe" doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to talking about evidence.

The golden ratio doesn't justify the existence of God. Two values are in the golden ratio if their ratio is equal to the sum of the values divided by the larger quantity. That doesn't justify God. Sure this shows up in nature, but it's been proposed that the growth pattern in some plants that produce Fibonacci sequences are the most effective growth patterns. The Fibonacci sequence is a very natural progression of numbers and their sums. It also does not show up everywhere so it could be coincidence. We don't know the exact reason why it shows up so often in nature, however, proposing that God is the reason is just another "god of the gaps" argument that is an illogical position to take. It's also been demonstrated to be wrong many times throughout history. Where people throw god in to explain phenomena they can't, science eventually does explain those gaps in our understanding.

Saying that "god did it" is to me so dull-minded and boring and just shows that one lacks a curious and inquisitive mind. Never stop asking questions. Jumping to conclusions leads to misconceptions and missed chances at discovery and learning.

MeanMrMustard

Meh. It's just a pattern. Follow the math here. It is generalized to *any* series where the next number is the sum of the previous two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTWKKvlZB08

What this means is: pick any two positive integers, any. Use those numbers to start the series. Calculate the ratio of n / n-1, and it will converge to the golden ratio each time.

In other words, there's nothing special about Fibonacci numbers - it is just the pattern it makes as you calculate the ratio of the the nth number and the one before it. There are other series as well, sum of squares, etc. They all make patterns.

The mistake is thinking the patterns imply God.

waton

what amazes me is whenever you fold a paper with length of sides in that ratio, the ratio always remains the same, whether there ever was a god or not. now:

km to miles too ~.

the ratio is fundamental, it is a construct of human math, but could not be otherwise.

Saethydd

I would say that the argument works just as well for evolution and natural selection and certainly doesn’t serve as evidence against.

Take the sunflower for example, it makes evolutionary sense that the most effecient way to store seeds in the same amount of space would be seen there because that particular formation would have more seeds than any other and would therefore have more “offspring” and thus over time it would become the dominant form of its species.

As for the fact that this sort of thing follows a mathematical pattern, I don’t see how that proves a creator without invoking the logical fallacy that a creator must exist to make the patterns. The patterns in and of themselves don’t prove anything about their origins.

The argument for intelligent design insists that there is an obvious difference between something occuring by chance and something designed and that everything around us was “obviously designed.” However, how can one claim to be able to recognize the difference between design and chance if one presupposes that everything was designed? If you don’t know what something existing by chance looks like then how can you definitively say that what exists around us isn’t just that? You can’t. All you can do in engage in a confirmation bias that looks at the good things and calls it design, while simultaneously dismissing all the things that make no logical sense from a designer’s standpoint.

Evolution and natural selection however provide logical explanations for both extremely efficient mechanisms and crazy bullshit that makes no logical sense, and both of those things exist in nature in vast quantities whether creationists are willing to admit it or not.

Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

If God is responsible for this "Kreation", show me the doors to hell, please.

ttdtt

I am a designer and I use that principle all the time in design. Has nothing to do with god.

Its like how when it comes to visuals and say slogans or taglines - groups of 3 work best with the human mind.

i.e. Just Do It. I'm loving it. Imagination at work. Every Little Helps. Finger lickin' good. Taste the rainbow. Snap Crackle Pop.

BIG WARNING ALL - The human mind finds patterns even when they are not there. I.E. seeing Elvis in a piece of toast. THIS IS A GIANT PLUS as a result of evolution, and it is a GIANT NEGATIVE because that's why we have superstition and the persistence of religion.

Listen to this its good: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/brain-seeks-patterns-where-none-exi-08-10-03/

FYI: Did you know that when it comes to Beauty, and this works in all cultures. The people we generally feel are the most beautiful are mathematically the MOST AVERAGE.

If you take a million faces - and digitize the size and location of all features, the AVERAGE of all those are the people we feel are the most beautiful. I thought that was very interesting.

Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

@ttdtt: "Did you know that when it comes to Beauty, and this works in all cultures. The people we generally feel are the most beautiful are mathematically the MOST AVERAGE."

Case in point:

Views on the golden ratio??

Share this