1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The Golden Ratio - Evidence of God

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by dfnj, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:49 AM.

  1. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Aug 16, 2010
    I'm aware of the philosophy but even in that context, I was questioning whether anyone actually makes the specific assertion you suggested.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Etritonakin

    Etritonakin Well-Known Member

    May 16, 2010
    One concept which makes many believers in God cringe is "dependence". Many seem to believe that everything depends on "God" (more accurately, decisions made by God). However....

    An "eternal" God could not possibly have decided that it would exist. Even if it is the sum of all that is "natural" -an "eternal" God would be "dependent" upon the fact that it existed -not "responsible" for the fact that it existed.

    This is only problematic in their own minds.

    A "creator" would be a complex, self-aware system -dependent... upon simple interactions/systems being/becoming arranged as such.

    God's "nature" IS math, logic, etc. -God is COMPOSED of such....

    ...and would essentially be such wrapping its head around itself -and THEN becoming able to self-determine.

    The universe is MOST CERTAINLY governed by perfection. ("God" would necessarily have to be "perfect" in order to proceed. Any imperfection would initially affect God immediately and hinder progress -there would not have been buffers in place -such as now exist -which allow us to err without immediate consequence.

    Imperfect states are possible -and occur -but are inevitably rectified... "Imperfect", but "balanced" equations.

    (CREATION is causing a temporary imbalance in order to create a new balance in a different configuration)

    HOWEVER... it should be noted that "imperfection" is only a consideration after there is a "mind" capable of considering the concept -and that mind would be dependent upon the "perfection" /inevitability which inevitably led to its existence.

    God pleads with us to "delight in that which" he "has created" -but does not claim to have created himself.

    Rather... it is stated... "I AM THAT AM" -and that "God" is that which/who "was, is and will be".

    That indicates DEVELOPMENT.
    #22 Etritonakin, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:42 PM
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2019 at 11:54 PM
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Jul 10, 2017
    I'd venture to say that the biological phenomena in your example that can be fitted to mathematical templates are forms that have evolved as particularly efficient processes over millions of years of trial and error.

    They don't get their status because they fit the template. They get their status because, relative to the evolutionary task of surviving and propagating, they work.

    They're 'efficient' in the sense that (in your example) plants that genetically reproduce these processes are able to do so because they contribute to the plant's ability to survive long enough to propagate.

    Also 'efficient' in the sense that the processes produce the best result (in those terms) for the least expenditure of resources ─ and if that implies the simplest or most direct means to regularity, that may explain why they're congenial in maths terms.