There is/can be a True Religion

Let me take a different approach. I was at work for the last round and was kind of rushing.I apologize for misunderstanding and being ignorant about the topic. You did make that obvious, but the more I read the more I wanted to go off on a separate topic. Hopefully you can understand my mistake and allow us to continue this debate the way it should be.I do have my own arguments, and I do understand the topic, and if you could please consider this round, I'd appreciate it. I won't go off-topic. This is regarding absolute truth (or truth beyond a reasonable doubt) about the existence, or non-existence, of God or religion in general (but mostly God.)Absolute truth exists. ...Inside this reality. To say a God exists, an all-knowing deity, that we cannot understand completely, would imply he is beyond our level of knowledge. Although I agree that because we don't know the truth doesn't mean a truth doesn't exist. However when we refer to truth, we are speaking naturally, as this is our form of truth. Supernatural truth is (currently) impossible to come by. God is a supernatural being, I'm sure we can both agree on that. To say "logical proofs of God" is a complete contradiction, as God goes beyond our current understanding of logic. We can not deduce God with logic, as God is beyond our level of logic. I might come back to this later.Creationism is a theory. A theory that has come from a lack of answers for other theories, such as the Big Bang or Quantum Fluctuations or an Infinite Universe. However there is a big difference between creationism and any of the aforementioned theories, and that is logic and supernatural phenomenon. No Christian has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, according to our laws of logic, physics, time, space, matter, etc. that it is highly probable that a God does exist. They have given theories, sure, but most are either backed up with "your theories haven't been proved, therefore God exists," or "the Bible is the word of God, and similar events happened (aka prophesies), therefore we know God exists because humans cannot see into the future." Both of these arguments are theories, and we cannot rule these out as completely wrong, but logically speaking, they aren't as sound as any scientific theory, based on observations of the universe and time and relativity, etc.But like I said before, I don't want this to be a "God vs. No God" debate, as there are way too many of these already on this site.Saying "I have faith to be an Atheist" is also a complete contradiction. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something. I don't see the flying spaghetti monster, so I don't believe he is there. To not believe something is the opposite of believing something."Logically he must be immaterial..." This is also a complete contradiction of the term "logically," as logically speaking, "immaterial" is impossible, and so-called "dark energy" has been hypothesized to not even exist, and scientists have found sound evidence to support this theory [1], [2], [3].Supernatural is the exact opposite (and once again, a contradiction) of logical, as logical implies whatever is happening follows our current understanding of the laws of reality (for the most part), and supernatural is... well, not natural, and not part of our reality.I really do apologize once again, for misinterpreting/going off on a tangent here. I did not mean to ignore the debate, and reading my previous response to yours, I'm really ashamed at how ignorant it all sounds.I guess I'll go ahead and disagree with most of what I said in my previous response (if you're okay with that) and actually form a rational argument, and not an "agreement." I wasn't even following my own philosophy, and I really don't know why I chose to go on that path other than I was running incredibly short on time and wanted to at least get a reply in.Now... Like I said previously, supernatural is not natural (I'm sure we can agree on that?), and logic is our understanding of the naturalistic world/universe/everything. We do not base our logic or reasoning on supernatural ideas, hypothesis, theories, etc. However, we cannot rule out the existence of the supernatural. In a supernatural sense (God), there could be multiple "truths." This is a state of physics that goes beyond the laws of reality. We have not witnessed matter moving faster than the speed of light. We have not concluded that it is possible for matter to move faster than the speed of light. This is referring to reality; logic. To go outside of our reality would mean we would need to (most likely) completely drop all our laws around logic, and find different ways to come to conclusions.How do we come to a supernatural conclusion? Nobody knows. Does anything supernatural exist? Nobody knows. Is there one definitive supernatural conclusion? Once again, nobody knows. All this goes beyond our laws of reality, which in turn means we don't have the right methods to study, observe, test, and come to any sort of conclusion regarding a supernatural hypothesis.Your argument is that there is a truth in everything. You're right, according to our ideas of what logic and reality are, there is an absolute truth. However when we talk about something outside of our reality, it is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion.If it is impossible to enter another reality, another dimension, another universe... then it is also impossible to deduce that a God exists, or even assert that a God doesn't exist. I personally don't believe in a God, because the idea of one goes WAY beyond our level of logic and idea of reality, but I would never assert that one absolutely does not exist, because it is impossible to conduct tests on supernatural beings.I believe this is all I have to say. I hope you haven't given up hope in this debate, and I hope I have redeemed myself in your eyes enough for you to take my argument seriously. I (once again) apologize for going off on a completely separate argument in my previous round.I'd be more than happy to have a debate regarding the existence of God, the origins of the universe, and really anything to do with space or time, but I'd be even more pleased if you continued this debate and you haven't given up due to my atrocious first reply.Thanks, looking forward to hearing from you.[1] http://www.dailygalaxy.com... [2] http://preposterousuniverse.com... [3] http://science.time.com...