You Cannot Objectively Know Which Religion Is True (if any)

"If God had taken a physical form to present Himself to us and reveal the true religion, then everyone would know, as it then would be a scientific and empirical fact that this particular God exists and therefore which religion is true." Correct. "However, this has never happened, as no God of any religion has been physically detected, which would empirically prove a particular religion is true." True at the moment. However, this could change. If this were to happen, then we would know, so we CAN know-it's just not likely. "Let's put your statement to the test. Can an omnipotent God create an object to heavy for Himself to lift?" Yes. Then he would lift it anyway, because he's omnipotent and therefore not bound by logic. "Even if some Gods are physical, they still can't be proved scientifically/empirically in an objective way which would prove a particular religion is true." At the moment, this is true. However, if they were to appear to me and perform attributes to show their power, demonstrate knowledge to back up their age, etc. it would be possible for me to know that they were the true gods-therefore knowing that their religion is correct. "I agree it is possible. However it is also possible that the unicorn or the tooth fairy could come into our world. " Correct. So? "Until God comes into our world to prove a particular religion is right, it is not possible to objectively know which religion is true (if any)." Note that my opponent has modified his statement. His original statement was "you cannot know which religion is true (if any)." He has now added the modifier of "until/unless" which would mean it IS possible (but only in highly unlikely circumstances). Therefore we are, in fact, in agreement. "Nevertheless, this time travel assumption does you little good to prove the motion false now today." It was not stated that I had to prove how I could know "now today". Had this been stated in the opening, I would not have accepted the debate. However, it was not stated, and therefore my opponent is simply moving the goalposts. "I have shown in round 2 how people only subjectively know that their religion is true (mostly through indoctrination), which is why everyone of different religions believe their religion is right. This also indicates the lack of ability to objectively know which religion is true without being indoctrinated." Saudi Arabia (the only example you used) is a bad example because it does not have freedom of religion, and so most of the people who do convert would be afraid to admit it-hence tainting results. Furthermore, my opponent has still not provided a source for his claim that "you will see that the majority number of people always stay in the religion they are born into." He has only given a quote (note: not a study or fact) by Richard Dawkins, and given anecdotes about people he has met personally. "If the motion is false, then anyone from any religion should be able to objectively reach the conclusion that one particular religion is true." Not necessarily-not all information is available to everybody. If I have personally met a deity (I haven't obviously, but hypothetically), I could objectively know they are real, but noone else would. "You haven't presented any objective way of knowing that a religion is true which can be applied today so that everyone can know which religion is true (if any)." My opponent adds a new qualifier-he changes from saying that I must show a way which you can objectively know which religion is true, but has now changed it to say that I must show how EVERYONE can objectively know which religion is true TODAY. This is moving the goalposts and is a dishonest debate tactic. "It would also be helpful to specify which religion can be objectively known to be true. So far your general arguments about God can be applied to multiple religions, but you aren't proving how we can objectively know which specific religion is true (if any). This is what is required of you to refute the motion." You never stated that I had to use a specific religion-you only stated that IF I believe one religion is objectively true (which I don't), then I would have to show how in a way that is specific to that religion. Since I am an Atheist, I do not need to according to the rules you laid out. Again this is moving the goalposts.