The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that there is a god/creator? (Attempt #2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,983 times Debate No: 53671
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Surrealism I would like to apologize for the first debate being a timed disaster. You can re-use your opening first round argument again if you'd like; I haven't had much time to review the information to begin a rebuttal nor will I because frankly that's cheating and I'm not all about that.

Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that a creator or god does exist somewhere in the surrounding universe? pro is supporting that it does, in-fact prove that a god or creator was behind this mathematical sequences.

The Con portion of this debate will explain why the Fibonacci sequences does not prove the existence of a god/creator. You may use any means necessary.

You may use anything to support your theory/argument (Videos, Pictures, Recorded Scientific Data, Books, Theories from other Scientist or data, Etc.) please label them however you choose or whatever layout best fits how you would like to describe your debate.
1st Round is stating your proposal and why you believe so (Acceptance as usual)
2nd Round is rebuttals + any added information to further your proposal
3rd Round is rebuttals of the rebuttals + any added information to further your proposal
4th Round is closing statements

I hope to find someone else who is just as interested in this as I, and I am open to constructive criticism about this or my horrible grammar and spelling which you will have to endure with during this debate.
If you don't know what the sequence is here is a video that should explain it to you completely. (Finger Print of God Video) (The Fibonacci Sequence: Natures Code)


I accept and will reiterate my argument.

Mathematics is merely a set of rules to be used as an analogy for reality. These rules have logical consequences, including patterns like the Fibonacci sequence. Because these rules were meant to mirror reality in the first place, it's no surprise that a consequence of the rules would be reflected in reality. This may be hard to grasp, but here is an analogy.

Latin was created as a communication method meant to represent reality on some level or another. The word "necabantur" means "they were killed" in Latin. And since murders do occur, it surely must mean that this coincidence, between Latin and reality, can't be coincidence. There must be a higher power involved!

This is why I don't think that the Fibonacci sequence proves that there is a God or divine creator.

Over to you, Pro!
Debate Round No. 1


The existence of A creator is very evident throughout the display of the Fibonacci Sequence. Math was created/discovered by humans to represent change, if the Fibonacci Sequence is complete coincidence then how do you explain the golden ratio?
Either nature is self aware and corrected itself over and over again until complete perfection or a creator did exist at one pint and programmed the universe much like a computer is programmed to run by a computer programmer, only in a language that the programmer can understand.

Math represents change whether you are losing or gaining or finding angles; math is there to show change so humans can easily interpret it. If this change were to just be in one set of things or items then yes you'd be correct, but these set of numbers can be seen repeating themselves across the universe. Through plants, the spirals of galaxies, waves, and the stunning distance in separation between parts of your face and even your finger seems to go about using the same numbers. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 and so on. (I don't know how to post individual pictures onto the debate so here is a good website that shows some of my examples listed above plus more.) {Golden Ratio attributing to beauty.)

The link above takes you too a website where a beauty pageant took place, out of 8,045 one woman; Florence Colgate's face was taken and perceived to be the most beautiful. Everything on her face, is directly proportional with Phi, or the golden ratio: 1.68. Which is actually pretty crazy if you think about it. The fact that human beings are attracted too this ratio on other peoples faces, however this can speculate many different things but the major one that it does point out that a creator stamped in the back of our brains that we are to chase and seek out this golden ratio. To study it, and to get as close to it as possible. If this ratio can attract human beings in a sexual manner, or a physical manner than this is no mere coincidence. Once again, this creator could be much like a computer programmer, starting up the computer too work and allowing the programs he installed himself to work on there own without his constant supervision or approval. However we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god/creator, we can only guess and hope that their is one or that their isn't depending on how you take life and go about it.

On to you con.


Your entire argument can be summarized as follows:

A system of logical rules intended to mirror reality has mirrored reality. Therefore, God exists.

No, I'm being quite serious. I don't mean to be rude, but I did post an unrefuted argument in the first round which just happens to refute your current argument. I'm not going to post the same argument twice, so just tell me: why does my Latin example not work, and your Fibonacci sequence example work as evidence for a designer? And if my example is evidence of a designer, why do we all not speak Latin?

Again, both mathematics and Latin are sets of logical rules intended to mirror reality. Granted, they have different purposes, mathematics is for derivation and Latin for communication, but all the same, mathematics is really just a mirror to the universe. And you're telling me that because we can see a reflection in that mirror, that this is evidence of a designer. Seriously now. Over to you, Pro!
Debate Round No. 2


First of all I would like to point out that my second round debate is my actual debate, I thought that was genuinely understood but for the next time I will make that more clear for anyone's understanding.

Second of all I would like to point out the fact that Latin and Mathematics have very little in common and in fact modern mathematics come from the Arabic Numerals that were discovered and copied by the Catholic Church during their crusades and purging of all non-Catholics in the medieval ages. Latin is the father of most common languages today, including Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Italian. Your analogy as well was hard to follow, and any bloke could randomly say something "Coincidentally" related too something scientific or religious and say that it is all the proof that they would ever require to disprove something or prove in which ever manner they might have.

Yes Mathematics is a good mirror and explains why things happen in this world, however that does not mean that some conjectures of scientific or mathematical reasoning are wrong or right. Saying that "The shadow angles 45 degrees perfectly from the top of my house to the ground, that means that forty five good things should occur today right?" wrong.
Just because people die doesn't mean that their is a creator out there, however it does explain the ignorance of humans and our arbitrary battle royal collars that kill us if only one of our vital organs fails. For humans can die naturally or by other human hands. For instance in the Battle of the Somme in WW I, over 1,000,000 soldiers on both sides of the trenches were either injured or killed during the battle which lasted five days. What deity would see or want the slaughter of one million potential worshipers? By any means how does that benefit them, also saying "necabantur" for this battle proves nothing other than those words were said and can lead to no mathematical, scientific, religious or basic human conjecture. If you think saying those words and expecting a god was behind the creation of those words for them to be used coincidentally to prove the existence of a god is out right dumb. Its on the same level as saying if i walk into a garage i'm a car. Which is also false. You can be in the car, but you can never be the car as a human being.

The Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio are both promptly all we can really have to show the existence of a god scientifically and mathematically. This ratio shows up all across the board from the examples that I listed in my argument. Each proving that this number could just be coincidental or the mark of a true creator, which I leaned more to the side that a creator does exist out their, because once again in my debate above I showed that 1.68 could be a ratio to define true beauty in the world. For the most beautiful woman had even ratios across her face of numbers close in digits too 1.68, and many men and women alike found that attractive. You can't tell me that this is a coincidence, any once again any one bloke can say "I have my own define picture of what is beautiful." My answer to this snobby remark is go look at the picture and truthfully tell me that this woman is not beautiful in anyway shape or from; because I found her face quite pleasant to look at. It had a warm and accepting feeling to it. Another example listed in the link above in my second round enlargement is the fact that galaxies of all sorts follow a strict spiral of 1,1,3,5,8,13,21,34...and so on. This same pattern can be found in the double helix of our DNA, of Hurricanes, and so on and so on!!! This is on pure coincidence, but the mark of a perfect ratio created by something far superior to us in anyway you could possibly think. And once again my analogy of a computer programmer fits this role very well, for a computer programmer makes the computer run the way he wants it run; and we have no idea who this programmer, the only thing we know is the company he works at or could work at.
Seeing a reflection in the mirror only proves a reflection, however everyone can see something different in the mirror, and they are the ones who choose what they see and what they do not.
Over To con baby con.


Look, the origins of Latin and modern mathematics may be different, but what they do have in common is that they are both systems based on logical rules in which the consequences of those rules are used. In mathematics, we look at our given conditions, quantify them according to the rules of mathematics, and spell out the results in our language of numeric symbols. In Latin, we look at our observed world or intended message, grammatize it according to the rules of Latin, and spell out the results in our language of spoken phrases. In math, there are multiplication and trigonometry tables. In Latin, there are declension and tense tables. Yes, the systems have different purposes and symbology, but to carry out any analogy to a ridiculous extreme is to defeat the purpose of the analogy entirely, in that it is meant as an explanatory mechanism. The fundamental idea remains the same: logical systems that describe reality.

Look, I'll be level here. Mathematics describes reality, so finding out that a mathematical pattern appears in reality is EXPECTED. Just as with Latin. The words we use in Latin also describe reality, so it's no surprise when something described in Latin with a sentence "Necabatur" turns out to correspond to reality (a man was killed). Same thing with English. If I say "Look, a bird!" it shouldn't be particularly surprising or suspicious if you turn around and see a bird. It also isn't evidence of the intervention of a higher power. Same thing with mathematics. If mathematics says "Look, a pattern!" it shouldn't be particularly surprising or suspicious if we turn around and see that pattern in nature. Again, it isn't evidence of the intervention of a higher power either.

And as for your rebuttal to my mirror analogy. Again. Analogies are not meant to be stretched to ridiculous limits. If I say "You know, John Stuart Mill is like Machiavelli because they both believed the end justifies the means" it makes no sense for you to say "Well no because John Stuart Mill didn't live in Italy in the 16th century." See the problem here? This is what you're doing when you take my analogies and stretch them to ridiculous meanings they were never meant to have.

Over to you, pro.
Debate Round No. 3


Dig3stingLizard forfeited this round.


For sake of fairness, I'll simply say vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.