Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why do atheists consider the concept of a creator as invalid?

Why is it that atheists find it more plausible that the intricacy - order to detail - of the universe, the earth's fine tuning of life, the human genome - which in itself has, merely for ONE strand of DNA, a building code immensely complex than human language - and the moral law in man's being, all came as nothing other than a result of chance/random happenings but most difficult to accept it was created by a creator/intelligent designer??
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Lincoln98, there's no code in DNA

A code is a symbol for a symbol.

Any object can be represented by a symbol. This is the primary symbol.
The primary symbol is not a code. It merely stands in place of an object.
A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

For many humans, an object with feathers (a real object... actual and observable) can be represented by the symbol ‘bird’.
That symbol isn’t a code… it’s a representation (the primary symbol)
For computers (machines designed by intelligent beings with a goal), the symbol ‘bird’ might also be represented by
01100010011010010111001001100100
That’s a code, because it is a symbol for a symbol.

A nucleotide can be represented by a letter e.g. guanine is represented by G.
For one species of intelligent beings, G is the primary symbol (representation) of an object… in this case, a nitrogenous base that can be part of a nucleotide, and which forms three hydrogen bonds with cytosine.
Such primary symbols can used to represent a series of completely localised, tightly constrained, chemical interactions, and any series of such interactions can be represented by primary symbols e.g. GATACA

What you may notice is that this then does not progress to any form of secondary symbol. There is no symbol for which this is a symbol… there is no code.