There is/can be a True Religion

Thanks, Con. :- I assert that truth about God is no less objective or knowable than truth about anything else, and challenge Con to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on both of us. -: That's what we're arguing about, and what I'm going to prove in the affirmative. First, I assert that truth does exist. This should be obvious, in that without truth conversation and life in general is impossible. Even if truth did not exist, we would have to say "truth does not exist," which would actually be true, so we'd have one true statement . . . I'm glad that Con does not seem to be one of the postmodernists who doubt the very existence of truth. If so, this whole debate would be pointless, as what we are arguing about is whether the phrase "truth about God is no less objective or knowable than truth about anything else" is true. Enough said. Second, since truth does exist, I assert that truth about God is no less-knowable than truth about the rest of life. To explore this, we must first examine how we know other truths are, in fact, true. Examples of other truths: Carbon exists. Christopher Columbus travelled to the Americas. Bachelors cannot be married. Now, how do we know that these truths exist? By using reasoning. We users of DDO should know this more than anyone else, as we are constantly arguing about various subjects. We prove our points (that something is "true" or "not true") by citing sources that are apparently "true," using deductive and inductive reasoning as well as other forms of logic, and appealing to the scientific method. Maybe other techniques are used. I argue that the above methods of finding "truth" are self-evident. To summarize: A) Examining/reading sources that we know to be highly accurate [We know they are accurate using B and C] B) Using logic/reasoning C) Using the Scientific Method, which is based off logic. Looking at the above examples: Carbon exists (C) Christopher Colombus travelled to the Americas (A) Bachelors cannot be married (B) This is what Con said: "One thing though - this won't be a "God-vs-No-God" debate, but for you to assert that a knowable truth about God does/can exist, you would need to prove how you know that, and (through my experiences, I'd love if I saw something new) the only real way to do that and to get anyone on your side is to prove that God (any God) does exist." Why? There are myriad atheists on this site that assert that their "religion" is scientifically proven. They claim that, objectively, God does not exist. What prevents us from evaluating the evidence and arriving at a conclusion? This is how I know knowable truth about X can/does exist using logic: Truth exists. The opposite of true is false. Therefore, if X does exist, X cannot not exist. One of the two must be true. That one would be the objective truth. It is impossible to not have an objective truth on a topic. Even if we do not know it, and even if it changes, there is truth, and using the above methods we can often discover it. I challenge Con to prove otherwise. Now, why can't we use those same methods to discover truth about God? We may not be able to ABSOLUTELY prove or settle the question about whether God exists or is represented by a particular religion, but, just as in the rest of life, we should be able to discover enough evidence to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that He exists or does not exist and also at least fundamental aspects of His personality and/or character (if He does exist). After all, we cannot know for certain that Christopher Columbus existed, but that's where the evidence points. From a Christian perspective, I would point to the historical evidence supporting the Gospel accounts, the historical evidence of Jesus, the impossibility of the universe exploding out of nothing, and other logical evidences to support my claim that the Christian God exists. However, that is not intended to be something for Con to counter. I am just pointing out my interpretation of the evidence, which I believe leads to a Christian God. Muslims believe in Allah. Atheists believe in no God at all. New Age people believe in the Divine Oneness. These claims are all supported by evidence. But-:-:- These truth claims cannot all be true, as they are mutually exclusive. The point is: God cannot both exist and not exist. God cannot both have a Son and have no son. God cannot both BE the world and have CREATED the world. Logic leads us to the above conclusions. Religions are in some respects similar, but the main ones differ on most of the important issues. Similarly, God cannot both be all-good and bad, or universal and nonuniversal. Logic precludes us from holding two mutually exclusive or contradictory claims. One of those must be true, and that one is the objective truth. Objective means that a belief is based on knowable facts, rather than feelings or opinions. Objective truth is a truth that is true all the time, in all places, and at all times. And how can we know it? We discover it by using reasoning and logic. We may arrive at different conclusions, but if they are contradictory only one can be right. As one belief actually is true, the believer can be said to "know" the truth. Therefore, objective, knowable truth can/does exist. To word this another way: Con cannot prove that objective truth does not exist on a topic, for if he proved that he would have proved that objective truth does not exist on that topic, which would be an objective truth. Con cannot prove that knowable truth on a topic does not exist, for if he proved that he would have proved that knowable truth on that topic does not exist, which would be a knowable truth. Wow. I feel I have learned a lot just writing this. Over to Con, and good luck.