Slovakia census shows 60% of christians, yet from my own experience there far more people who are open to the idea of “Personal god”. Those people like to cite Bible, but dont have a problem to ditch Old Testament, and stick only with New Testament claiming that “this is the current one”.
One guy used this approach in quite interesting way.
- He ditched Genesis story completely.
He argued that science had completely proven that the story is either not true, or its just metaphor.
- He cited some “intelligent design” arguments.
His (supposedly rational) claim is that every structure needs a designer.
3, He cited Letters, Paul of Tarsus something like (translating from slovak)
“his invisible reality, his power and godhood could be learned since the creation, by thinking about created things”. And he concludes that things need design - an idea of “thing” which had to originate in the mind of the creator.
Well… Its a self defeating argument, i know that. “I deny Creation, but I will cite the guy who speaks about it.”, but anyway he made me think about that. I would not even bother with question where did the designer come from (as sometimes its perceived as form of victory). Therefore I started to think about different counterargument.
If you are a designer, you will draw the plans of a building with everything it its included in it. The plan shows the building in one particular moment, and thats the moment when its completed.
The thing is that earlier ideas about Earth and Universe in general were relatively static. Universe was not expanding, continents were not drifting, organisms were not evolving. Scientific method changed this perception.
If there is a claim that everything is “part of a plan” you as a designer would spend an eternity… Now lets invent atom of copper, which will be part of the electric lines in the building… now lets design that this window will crack after some time… and keep designing every stage of decay of later abandoned building, but up to the stage that every atom and sub-atomic particle of the building will evaporate at time when universe will end.
Therefore its more and more apparent that change itself is a good argument against inteligent desing, yet I look for a way how to explain that.