If the "belief" by a significant number of people leans towards something being true - how do you explain the belief that the world was flat before the 17th century?
This doesn't sound like a way to improve the premise. It seems like it should be a new challenge or a new support. Or is it an argument against the Premise?
This premise isn't saying that belief by a significant number of people is a reason for something to be true. It's basically breaking the topic statement down into something more specific. It's supporting the topic statement by saying that even if you look at every major religion you won't find a description of God that works.
Could this be formed into one or more statements? Even better, it might be multiple challenges. It's a question of whether each of those things is a sufficient argument on their own. For example, maybe you could say, "The existence of God is the only way to explain the creation of the Universe." Would that be a sufficient argument on its own, or would other things, such as physics, order, etc., be required? If these are each strong enough on their own, then you could have five challenges, which would mean that they could be more easily discussed, and it would be more apparent that casting a doubt on one of them doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the others.
If the big bang theory is the example of the creation of the universe - where did "space" come from to create this big bang?? For that matter, what is "space" - does it have a beginning or an end?
The discussion area is here to discuss how to improve the "Premise". (The premise being "Explain the creation of the...".) If you're the author of the premise then you can edit it. If not, maybe you should make a new challenge? I suspect that this interface needs to be improved to make this more obvious.
I made a challenge that turns the comment about the big bang into its own challenge.
The statement above does not appear in any challenges, supports, or specifications of other statements.