Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[Vesture El]

That's not what I asked, I'll agree that it's a good idea to ask questions, what I'm questioning is if the people that think there's something beyond nature have any good reason to?

[jimwalton]

Yes, they have good reason to. I thought I did answer that when I said, "So, in answer to your question, yes, I think they're right to do so. We all want good reasons for what we believe."

The logic and evidence for the existence of God (something beyond nature) is far stronger than the evidence for pure naturalism (nature is all there is).

[Tarnished]

> "I don't know" is only the answer for people who have not found a way to the answer.

That's right, and pretending to have "found a way to an answer" doesn't mean you have the correct answer. The correct answer may still be I don't know. Making up magic fairies so you can pretend to have an answer doesn't give you the right answer, does it?

> Great question, and the answer is that there are many logical and scientific evidences for "why is there a god rather than no god?"

No, if there was scientific evidence, there would be a scientific god theory. There isn't.

> In other words, there are adequate answers for that question as well as for the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

Asserting answers based on bad evidence is likely to lead to the wrong answers. Again, this is why there is no scientific god theory.

> Science operates well in the natural realm, but is limited when it comes to questions of philosophy, law, literature, theology, economics, politics, the stock market, predicting the winners of sporting events, and dozens of other legitimate pursuits of knowledge.

Sorry, the scientific method, evidenced based methods, work very well in those areas. Every one of those things you listed is better dealt with, understood, and measured using an evidence based, rigorous approach, such as science.

> This is misleading. Science cannot explain what was around before the Big Bang, what motivated the Big Bang, the causal mechanism for the Cambrian Explosion, dark matter, what happens to time in black holes, and many many many things.

The things that aren't explained yet by science is where we say "I don't know". Nobody is claiming otherwise. Are you suggesting that those gaps in knowledge should be filled with magic or gods? The god of the gaps?

Science is the best tool we have for modeling reality and for trying to understand it. Are you saying that in the absence of data about those things, that something else becomes the best tool?

> It's disingenuous to claim "all of it has been well explained as natural."

Do you think it's disingenuous to assume that I'm asserting that things we haven't learned are explained?

> I'm not invoking magic. That's foolish. Considering the metaphysical, however, is a logical pursuit.

It's not a logical pursuit, it's conjecture and speculation, well, unless you have evidence, good falsifiable evidence.

> Science lacks a complete explanation of what is and how it got here.

Yes, because it recognizes where we have good evidence and where we don't. It doesn't just make up answers where the actual answer is "I don't know".

> Science lacks sufficiency of explanation, whereas theism doesn't.

Science is concerned with accurately modeling reality with evidence and facts. Theism, not so much. Theism was created to answer the tough questions, but it did so thousands of years ago when superstition and fairy tales were sufficient. How often has science corrected theism? All the time. How often has theism corrected science? Never. The only thing that has ever corrected science, is more science.

> I have, and so have billions of others. It comes from not being closed minded about the options. Science and the natural world are but one consideration.

You didn't explain your methodology. And if its a reliable methodology, then why doesn't science use it?

[jimwalton]

> pretending to have "found a way to an answer" doesn't mean you have the correct answer.

I agree that pretending to have found an answer is meaningless and doesn't mean you have the correct answer. But since I follow the evidence where it leads, and I give weight to the stronger logical and scientific arguments, pretending has nothing to do with it.

> Making up magic fairies so you can pretend to have an answer doesn't give you the right answer, does it?

Of course not. Prejudice and bias don't mean you have the right answer, either.

> No, if there was scientific evidence, there would be a scientific god theory.

A scientific god theory? I don't even know what that means. There is scientific evidence for theism. The universe exhibits many characteristics of having been planned out and executed by an intelligent source. And what we see in nature is much more concordant with theism than it is with naturalism.

> Asserting answers based on bad evidence is likely to lead to the wrong answers.

Of course this is true. That's why I don't do it.

> Sorry, the scientific method, evidenced based methods, work very well in those areas.

Seriously? You can use science to predict how the stock market will go and who will win the football game? You must be a very wealthy person.

> The things that aren't explained yet by science is where we say "I don't know". Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Correct. There is so much that science can't tell us.

> Are you suggesting that those gaps in knowledge should be filled with magic or gods? The god of the gaps?

Of course not. That's foolishness. We use logic and evidence to guide what we believe. You've got this caricaturizing bias—you keep bringing up magic. Do you like David Copperfield?

> Science is the best tool we have for modeling reality and for trying to understand it. Are you saying that in the absence of data about those things, that something else becomes the best tool?

You're right that science is an excellent tool for modeling natural reality and trying to understand it. But science is only good in its own discipline, and it's only good as far as it goes. In the absence of that, we do indeed use other tools. In a courtroom, for instance, we use lawyers, juries, and judges. Science (sometimes) contributes to cases, but we don't use scientists to determine guilt or innocence. Instead we use many indicators, some of which have nothing to do with science.

> [The metaphysical] It's not a logical pursuit, it's conjecture and speculation, well, unless you have evidence, good falsifiable evidence.

Dr. Evandro Agazzi, President of the International Academ of Philosophy and Science in Brussels, says that we are the first generation to have the hauteur to claim that reality only exists in the material, natural world. ". Our view of science as an authority causes us to talk about material things as existent, but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. The moral law within us exists just as surely as the stars in the heavens. ... Time also has places, just as in the material world. ... In space and time the distinctive places that exist are identified in relative terms. They all exist relative to the person. ... Principles of Physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity. It cannot and does not cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of Physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality."

I agree with him.

> Theism was created to answer the tough questions, but it did so thousands of years ago when superstition and fairy tales were sufficient.

You can't just make up answers. Where's your scientific proof of this claim?

> And if its a reliable methodology, then why doesn't science use it?

Not all methodology is scientific. How does a professor explicate a poem? How does a journalist create an op-ed? How does a musician evaluate Beethoven's 9th Symphony? What is the best way to understand Picasso's Guernica? Certainly not by science. Science is fantastic in its own arena, but it's simply untrue that science is the sum total of all knowledge and the only reliable methodology in every arena.

Right now there is an effort to impeach President Donald Trump. Are we using science to do it? Of course not—that's foolishness. This is not the place for science, but instead a whole different kind of reasoning and methodology.

[Tarnished]

> But since I follow the evidence where it leads, and I give weight to the stronger logical and scientific arguments, pretending has nothing to do with it.

So you're saying your position is supported by science?

> A scientific god theory? I don't even know what that means.

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Have you heard of germ theory? Gravitational theory? Theory of relativity? Theory of evolution by natural selection?

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

If there is a phenomena that effects our reality, that we understand based on evidence, then there is a scientific theory about it.

A scientific god theory would be a scientific theory about this god of yours, if it had any good falsifiable evidence to support it. But it does not. So your assertion about a god existing is not supported by science.

> There is scientific evidence for theism.

No, there simply is not. If there was, it would be part of the scientific god theory.

> And what we see in nature is much more concordant with theism than it is with naturalism.

This may be your opinion, but you can't say it's supported by science. That is demonstrably not true.

> Seriously? You can use science to predict how the stock market will go and who will win the football game?

You didn't say anything about accuracy. The fact is, you use facts and evidence to determine which teams or which company is likely to under perform, or which are doing better than others.

> There is so much that science can't tell us.

Maybe, but the point is that there is so much science doesn't tell us yet. Just because science doesn't tell us something now doesn't man it can't. It's still the best tool.

> You've got this caricaturizing bias—you keep bringing up magic.

Yeah, sorry. I see inserting a god to have the same explanatory power as inserting magic. When people say that god did something, they don't give toy ant details of how he does it. Same with magic.

> In a courtroom, for instance, we use lawyers, juries, and judges.

Bad analogy. We don't use layers juries and judges as tools to find evidence. Those are the actors, who interpret the evidence and try to piece it together. You left out investigators who gather the evidence. And the experts who interpret the complex evidence.

> Instead we use many indicators, some of which have nothing to do with science.

Science is a discipline and a method of finding and evaluating evidenced. The courts absolutely do use the same vigor and standards of fact and evidenced.

> Our view of science as an authority causes us to talk about material things as existent

That quote is enough for me to dismiss this person as an expert on anything. We don't view science as an authority. That is spoken like someone who simply does not understand science, and is likely biased towards intentionally mischaracterizing science.

In any case, this is an appeal to authority. A fallacy. His opinion on science and pseudoscience has no bearing on the evidence, or the fact that science works.

If you want your beliefs to be rational, you base them on good evidence. What this guy says does not change that.

> You can't just make up answers. Where's your scientific proof of this claim?

Which part are you disputing? That your religion was created thousands of years ago? Or that its based on superstition? Or that its based on fairy tales?

> Not all methodology is scientific.

Thats a cop out. Science is interested in modeling and understanding reality. If you have a method that is demonstrably reliable at helping to do that, then it is absolutely in the realm of what science is trying to do.

> How does a professor explicate a poem?

Theism is just a poem?

>How does a journalist create an op-ed?

Theism is just an opinion story by a writer?

> How does a musician evaluate Beethoven's 9th Symphony?

Theism is a collection of music?

> What is the best way to understand Picasso's Guernica?

Theism is a piece of art?

If that is all theism is, then sure, we don't need science for it. But that's not what theism is, theism makes claims about reality, and those absolutely are the purview of science.

> Science is fantastic in its own arena, but it's simply untrue that science is the sum total of all knowledge and the only reliable methodology in every arena.

Yup, and that arena is claims about reality, not an exploration or appreciation of art or music or creative writing. You're making a pretty blatant equivocation fallacy here to try to dismiss science on the claims about reality that theism makes.

> Right now there is an effort to impeach President Donald Trump. Are we using science to do it?

We're using facts and evidence to do it, the basis of science.

> This is not the place for science, but instead a whole different kind of reasoning and methodology.

No, you can pretend that there's a god who created everything and intervenes in your life and cares what you do in your bedroom. But those are all claims about reality, not about how a piece of music feels. And the rational person doesn't accept claims about reality that aren't based in good sufficient evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[jimwalton]

> So you're saying your position is supported by science?

I said that science and theism have more in common than science and naturalism.

> Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Let's not be insulting here. It's not conducive to reasonable dialogue.

> A scientific god theory would be a scientific theory about this god of yours

This is quite backwards. Once science starts theorizing about metaphysics, it is no longer doing science. Science pertains to the natural world, not the supernatural one.

>> There is scientific evidence for theism.
> No, there simply is not.

I'm sensing you haven't really studied this issue.

>> Seriously? You can use science to predict how the stock market will go and who will win the football game?
> You didn't say anything about accuracy.

Truly a cop out on your part. Science can predict all kinds of things within the natural world. But there are many things that are not part of science's jurisdiction.

> Maybe, but the point is that there is so much science doesn't tell us yet. Just because science doesn't tell us something now doesn't man it can't. It's still the best tool.

(1) This is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy; (2) science is the best tool for the natural world. That is its arena and limitation.

> Which part are you disputing? That your religion was created thousands of years ago? Or that its based on superstition? Or that its based on fairy tales?

I'm disputing what you said: "Theism was created to answer the tough questions." Prove it by science.

> Theism is just a poem?

Of course not. Never said or implied that.

> Theism is just an opinion story by a writer?

Of course not. Never said or implied that. What I said was that science doesn't comprise all knowledge.

>> Right now there is an effort to impeach President Donald Trump. Are we using science to do it?
> We're using facts and evidence to do it, the basis of science.

Of course we're using facts and evidence (allegedly), but we're not using science. These are issues of jurisprudence, motive, intent, and threat. They're not issues of science. I have yet to see a scientist enter any of these proceedings.

> you can pretend that there's a god who created everything and intervenes in your life and cares what you do

I don't have to pretend. I follow the evidence and logic where it leads.

> But those are all claims about reality, not about how a piece of music feels.

This has nothing to do with music. Music was an illustration of one of many realities that is not a scientific pursuit.

> And the rational person doesn't accept claims about reality that aren't based in good sufficient evidence.

I agree. That's why I'm an evidentialist.

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No they don't, they just need a reliable source. As long as the source is reliable and squares with reality, the evidence can be as plain as can be.

[Scape211]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

If a small earthquake hits my house and knocks over my thousand dollar vase, I would call my insurance company to get it replaced. But its basically my word and the leftover evidence of my claim that stand. I cant make another earthquake to replicate it over and over again to keep testing it. Scientific method is not going to help out properly here. Yes you can observe, measure, and evaluate, but since you cant repeatedly test it, science would consider this inconclusive.

Now some would look at what evidence is left as well as the testimony of the person. We would say 'huh an earthquake could have hit this place, and it could have knock over the vase. We know earthquakes exist and its possible for this to have happened. And why would someone want to waste their time calling and making claims if they couldve kept their vase in the first place? Makes sense that this is reasonably true."

Others in the hard science camp would say," I need better proof. We need another earthquake to hit this place while we are recording the evidence and streaming it live. Then we would need to do that 5 more times. If the vase falls every time, only then will I believe this to be possible."

There is no way they will get that evidence. You cant ask God to replicate one time miracles over and over again for science to study it and deem the 'Scientific God Theory" true. But we do have documents proven to be credible, eye witness testimony from that time period, and even science that could explain the natural cause for many biblical events (Joshua and the wall of Jericho, Moses and the 10 plagues, etc.). Just because we cant replicate it using the scientific method doesnt mean it didnt happen. The fact that we have evidence, documentation, eye witness, and explainable science attached would be very strong in court and very reasonable.

If there is a phenomena that effects our reality, that we understand based on evidence, then there is a scientific theory about it.

A scientific god theory would be a scientific theory about this god of yours, if it had any good falsifiable evidence to support it. But it does not. So your assertion about a god existing is not supported by science.

Though we cant use the scientific method to refute claims of God throughout the Bible and that time period, we will do the next best thing; science/history/evidence to explain the possibility of the miracles of the Bible.

Moses and the 10 plauges - Exodus 11-12:36. Quick summary is that Moses, using the power of God caused 10 miraculous plagues over Egypt. This was for the pharaoh to let God's people go. Each time he said no, Moses invoked another plague. Sounds like a story, sounds like silly non-sense. Definitely not provable by the scientific theory. However, very possible based on science. The plagues listed:

1 - Exodus 7:17-18 - Plague of blood. All the water sources in Egypt are turned into blood.
2 - Exodus 8:1-4 - Plague of frogs. Mass amounts of frogs come into Egypt and cause problems.
3 - Exodus 8:16-17 - Plague of Lice. Mass amounts of lice. Yuck.
4 - Exodus 8:20-22 - Plague of Flies. Mass amounts of flies. Double Yuck.
5 - Exodus 9:1-4 - Plague of Livestock. Kills off livestock of the Egyptians.
6 - Exodus 9:8-9 - Plague of Boils. Egyptians get painful boils on their bodies.
7 - Exodus 9:22-23 - Plague of Hail. Nasty hail and thunderstorms over the land.
8 - Exodus 10:4-5 - Plague of Locusts. Worse than the other bugs as they eat all plants and crops.
9 - Exodus 10:21-22 - Plague of Darkness. Simply put - it was dark, but since the sun was extra important to the Egyptians, this meant something for sure.
10 - Exodus 11:4-7 - Plague of First Born. Death of all Egyptians first born.

All this sounds crazy, miraculous, and straight up unbelievable right? We certainly cant scientific method this guy. But, is any of it possible or even reasonable to believe? The short and crazy answer - yes. The long answer:

Scientists, philosophers and the like have found a few possible reasons for this to happen. The first being a volcanic eruption on the island of Santorini south of Greece around 1620-1600 BCE. Siro Trevisanato, a Microbiologist, studied this and found Egyptian medical records to support this theory. The eruption was massive and provided the catalyst for all the other events:

- Winds carried volcanic ash to Egypt likely over the summer. This included acidic properties such as mineral cinnabar which is capable of turning the water red.
- The red water would have caused the frogs the leap out and try to find clean water causing a massive migration.
- Insects would have burrowed into dead animals and hatched eggs to create gnats and flies
- The ash would have effected the weather patterns making acid rain to caused boils and account for the hail and thunderstorms
- The grass would be contaminated, causing the cattle to die off
- The humidity of the ash/air/weather wouldve been ideal conditions for locusts
- The ash would of course cause darkness
- The first born deaths are harder to pinpoint. Some say that since many were younger they were effected by the weather different than adults. Others say after losing their main sun god (Rai) to darkness, people made sacrifices to him. Still Trevisanato found ancient Egyptian accounts of children aristocrats lying dead in public and archaeological data matching this account.

This is all one way of explaining it with data and reason. Others relate it to red algae and weather patterns. John S. Marr, an epidemiologist believes this red algae sucked oxygen out of the water and caused it to turn red and be unusable. This again was a catalyst for the following plagues.

The point is that these aren't just unbelievable fairytales that have no basis or are rooted in fallacy. There are logical, reasonable, possible explanations for biblical events to have taken place. And this is of course not the only one. But just because we cant replicate it today doesn't mean it didn't happen and the fact that it is proven possible and has evidence that scientist, biologists, archeologist, etc have found, its reasonable to consider and certain unfair to write off due to not be repeatable. This is why we dont have a scientific method for proving God, but also why scientists will agree that God could exist.

[Tarnished]

> I said that science and theism have more in common than science and naturalism.

I'm not sure that that is what you said, but in any case, it's simply not true. First, science acknowledges nature, it does not acknowledge theism.

> Let's not be insulting here. It's not conducive to reasonable dialogue.

Why would an insult be your first assumption here? I'll take it then that you do know what a scientific theory is. But I'm not convinced you truly understand science, i hope your confidence is well placed. Again, not an insult, I've seen plenty of people claim to understand something, only to demonstrate that they in fact do not.

> Once science starts theorizing about metaphysics

Ok. This demonstrates that you do not know the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory isn't "science theorizing" about stuff. It's a collection of evidence and experiments, etc. If science happens to gather evidence of some things, it doesn't matter if those things are "categorized as metaphysical". If science can gather evidence about it, it's because its in the natural world.

But a moment ago you said that science is more compatible with theism than the natural world.

> Science pertains to the natural world, not the supernatural one.

Thats right. So if we're talking about the supernatural and theism, and it's off limits to science, then why are you claiming that there is scientific evidence for theism, or gods?

Make up your mind.

> I'm sensing you haven't really studied this issue.

I'm sensing that you can't decide whether there is or isn't scientific access to theistic claims.

>> You can't use science to predict how the stock market will go and who will win the football game? You didn't say anything about accuracy.
> Truly a cop out on your part. Science can predict all kinds of things within the natural world. But there are many things that are not part of science's jurisdiction.

Are you implying there is a supernatural component to the stock market or sports games?

Not a cop out at all. When science makes a prediction, its not supernatural. It simply means we understand an aspect of the natural world, that we can use that information to predict something. Science not being able to accurately foresee the outcome of a football game doesn't mean science failed. This isn't the type of prediction science makes.

> This is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy

No, it sounds like you're just throwing stuff out there now to see what will stick. The god of the gaps fallacy is when you insert an answer somewhere where we don't have an answer. This is more formally known as an argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that there are undiscovered stuff yet to be discovered in not a fallacy. The fallacy is when you put an answer in that gap in knowledge because "it hasn't been proven false".

> science is the best tool for the natural world. That is its arena and limitation.

So which is it? Can science investigate the supernatural theistic claims or not? If not, then don't say theism is supported by science.

> "Theism was created to answer the tough questions." Prove it by science.

Prove it by science. First off, science doesn't prove anything. It makes tentative models of reality based on the best available evidence.
But here's my evidence. All the big questions are answered by theism. Many of the questions have since been correctly answered by science. We know what germs are and we used to think people were possessed, when it turns out they were just sick. We know where lightning comes from, not a god. As our scientific knowledge increases, the god of the gaps keeps getting displaced. All that is left now are how the universe started, or how did life on earth start some millions of years ago.

> Of course not. Never said or implied that.

You implied all those things when you compared your god, or our ability to study him with science, to art, music, poetry, etc.

> Never said or implied that. What I said was that science doesn't comprise all knowledge.

Science is a collection of knowledge. And it is used to learn about our natural world. Does your god interact in the natural world? If so, science can study it. Is he said to do things in our natural world? Yup, but there are natural explanations for those things, based on evidence, that don't seem to need a god. And if your god doesn't interact in the natural world, then how can you possibly rationally justify believing it exists, let alone have such high confidence in it? Not evidence.

> No they don't, they just need a reliable source. As long as the source is reliable and squares with reality, the evidence can be as plain as can be.

That sounds very authoritarian. The source of evidence is much less meaningful than the actual evidenced.

What kind of evidence would you need to accept the claim that one of your neighbors has a pet dog?

What kind of evidence would you need to accept the claim that one of your neighbors has a pet unicorn that he visits by teleporting to a unicorn realm?

[jimwalton]

> I'm not sure that that is what you said, but in any case, it's simply not true. First, science acknowledges nature, it does not acknowledge theism.

You still have not understood what I'm saying. Of course science acknowledges nature and not theism. That's quite obvious. Instead, what I'm saying is that science can only partially explain the cause of the universe; biology and chemistry cannot explain abiogenesis, science cannot explain how reasoning can be reliable if it came about by selection and mutation. Neither can science explain consciousness, personality, morality, or even truth. But theism can explain all of these.

In addition, given that many of the cosmological constants are very fine-tuned for life, this is not at all surprising or improbable if there is a God. On the other hand, to assume that all of these happened by chance is extremely improbable. This offers support for theism over naturalism.

The fact that the universe has so much orderliness, reliability, constancy and predictability, which is the ground of science itself, speaks more to an orderly and reliable cause than to a random one emitting from an "explosion." Theism offers more resources to understand why there are ineffable laws in the universe than naturalism does.

Why the universe and the world are describable by math leads one more to an intelligent cause than one of chance.

Evolution that is not directed or guided or orchestrated by an intelligence has a more difficult time explaining life, purpose, reason, and truth. In naturalism there is no direction and no purpose; it is blind processes; there is no aim or goal. In contrast, evolution that is guided by a powerful, intelligent and purposeful cause is a more complete and reasonable explanation. Science fits better with theism than with naturalism.

> Why would an insult be your first assumption here?

Let's not play pretend games here. You seriously think I've never heard of scientific theories, germ theory, gravity, relativity, and the theory of evolution by natural selection? And that it's not insulting me to think I haven't even had middle school science? C'mon.

> So if we're talking about the supernatural and theism, and it's off limits to science, then why are you claiming that there is scientific evidence for theism, or gods?

It goes in one direction only. Divine beings and forces can manifest themselves in the physical world, but without warning or predictability, science can not study them. Since they don't repeat, can't repeat on demand, and can't be compared with control groups, and can't be verified by other scientists (who presumably could also know it was coming and be set up for it), science can't study the material effects of spiritual causes.

> Are you implying there is a supernatural component to the stock market or sports games?

Of course not. I'm saying that such prediction is not in science's capability, as many things are not. Science is only good in the natural realm, and not in others. Science can predict many natural things, but it's predictions are subject to its field; science doesn't extend to all knowledge or every field.

> You implied all those things when you compared your god, or our ability to study him with science, to art, music, poetry, etc.

No I did not. Those were examples of aspects outside of the scope of science. They are not examples of things compared to God or our ability to study him with those disciplines.

> Does your god interact in the natural world? If so, science can study it.

Science is concerned with reproducible phenomena that can be studied under controlled conditions and give confirmatory results ( - Michael Faraday). Key notions are reproducibility, or at least that multiple examples exist and can be observed.

Science also needs understandability, or clarity. We find such things in repeated patterns and results, math, scales, standardized units of measure, and constants (such as gravity).

None of these are available to study theism or spiritual events, even when they take place in the natural world. Spiritual beings, realities, and forces are outside of the scope of science. When God acts in the world, it was not predictable, it is not reproducible, and it is not subject to standards of measurement and the cosmological constants.

> That sounds very authoritarian.

It's not authoritarian at all. Authentic evidence from a reliable source is what it takes to confirm an event, whether simple or extraordinary. It's not the commonness or uniqueness of the event, but the soundness of the source that determines its support.

[Al 88]

> I'm not sure the text says everyone is aware God exists.

I think it is quite clear that is what the text implies especially if you read from verse 19 to 21. Would be glad to hear if you have any reasons to suggest otherwise.

> Why is there something rather than nothing?

It is a good question but God does not answer this question in an anymore meaningful manner either. It just regresses it to the question of "Why is there God rather than nothing"?