There is/can be a True Religion

:- 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. -: Con says, "You're right that truth exists." That was essentially what I was arguing, that truth about God is no less objective than anything else. Or at least that was the first part. The second part, that truth about God is no less knowable than truth about anything else, is what Con really seems to be addressing: (at first glance):- :_\/:-> "However the reason we can't use the same methods to examine or prove a "God" exists is because there is currently no observable or testable experiments we can conduct on such a "God. You're right that truth exists. However the reason we can't use the same methods to examine or prove a "God" exists is because there is currently no observable or testable experiments we can conduct on such a "God." Con goes on to explain how we can see a tree with our own eyes while we cannot see God. Now, I would object to this. Christians have created logical proofs for God. They appeal to the Bible as an authoritative book that is "true." They claim that science supports Creationism. The first attribute of God that should be considered is his existence; whichever way you go (Atheism or Creationism) there is evidence. Again, I am not claiming both are valid. Obviously one is wrong. But I am disputing Con's point that we cannot use these methods to "prove" God exists. We may not be able to "prove" to certain skeptics that God exists, but we are able to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt," which is all that is needed in a court of law. I refer you to Norman Geisler if you wish to investigate the subject in far greater detail. He has co-authored one less-academic book titled "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" that logically and thoroughly advances the scientific and logical defense of the Christian God. And if God does exist and did create everything, then logically He must be eternal, immaterial, personal, all-wise, all-powerful, all-good, and several other attributes. There is a logical route that can be taken regarding God. However, I now see that Con likely misapprehended and/or misconstrued the whole point of this debate. I tried to make it very plain: :- 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. -: By "truth about God," I meant truth in areas such as the existence of God, the power of God, etc.. I did not mean MY truth about God (Christianity) but THE truth about God, whatever it is. In other words, I was simply asserting that truth about God exists and we can know it. Whether that truth be atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, or whatever. I thought the point was clear. Sadly, Con misunderstood, and I now see that he is simply an atheist seeking to disprove MY idea of the truth about God, i.e. that God exists. I tried to make it obvious that that was not the point of the argument. That was the sole reason I classified atheism as a religion, so that Con could not claim all religions were false and turn this into a "God/no god" debate, which I emphasized that I didn't want. One last time: :- 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. -: Well, I think I automatically win this. Con actually agrees with me. See, he thinks that atheism is the objective, knowable truth ("religion" for the purposes of this debate) about God. All I was arguing was that objective, knowable truth about God does/can exist, and now I see Con cannot dispute this as he believes the same. He just differs on which truth is the objective, knowable truth, as he pointed out in the last line: "Objective truth does exist. What the objective truth actually is, is a whole other story, and the difference between Atheism is Theism is Atheism has testable and observable studies." I'm sorry, Con, about the misunderstanding. And I'm sorry, all you watchers, that this debate is a bit of a mistake. I hope I showed you, however, in my 2nd round argument, that objective, knowable truth about God does exist, and how to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise. Again, I'm sorry. However, my sorry-ness does not prevent me from asking everyone reading this to vote Pro, as I upheld the clearly stated point of the debate. It is not my fault Con misunderstood. Since I still have about half my characters left, I would like to address some atheistic points Con made: (Please bear in mind the stated point of the debate is already resolved: this should not affect any voting.) "Alright [please, by the way, don't spell it like that: the proper spelling is "All right"] I see what you're getting at. And now I see why you said for the sake of this argument, we'll consider Atheism a religion. Atheism is not a religion, as it is simply a lack of belief in a deity or religion. However if we wish to consider Atheism a religion, we can say it's the religion of nature. We don't believe God created the universe, and we have reasonable evidence to show that God did not create the Earth, and we have more sound hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe other than "it was created by God." For someone to say they believe in a religion is almost always blind faith. Sure, there are accounts in the Bible that to add up historically, however because someone wrote a book of metaphors and basically overall positive ways to live life, does not mean it makes that religion as a whole actually "true." Atheists don't "believe" that God created the universe. They do so despite all the evidence that precludes the possibility of it coming into existence any other way. Again, may I refer to "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"? Their "belief" is no more valid than "belief" in a god, as the evidence does not support this particular claim. What evidence do atheists have that the universe created itself, or that it is continually rebounding? None. As I said before, Christianity need not be blind. My Christianity at least, if I may speak for myself, is not blind. "Atheism, as a religion, is the study of the universe around us. What makes Atheism true is that it studies observable evidence and particles. We can prove right off the bat that what Atheism "studies" actually exists, as we can see it, and test it. Undesirable and unobservable claims are not thrown out the window, however the lack of any type of evidence is really the main factor that leads us to believe Atheism is more credible than any kind of Theism." Now here is where Con goes really wrong. "Atheism" is not synonymous with "science." Science may or may not support atheism, but atheism is a belief system, and at that a belief system that does not always line up with the evidence. And atheism does not just address science. Atheism also addresses philosophy, in claiming there is no absolute morality and certain other things about man's being, and theology, in claiming God does not and has never existed. A lack of evidence? I would say a disregard of evidence that doesn't support their theories. Again, I refer you to Norman Geisler. He has turned out a ton of evidence for the Christian faith, and my opponent cannot make the kind of claims he is making without investigating any of this evidence. I think the issue is ignorance, illusion, and intractability rather than any inadequacies in the Creationist stance. Again, this has nothing to do with the stated question of the debate, so our God/no-god" exchange should not influence voters. But I encourage Mister_man to challenge me to a debate about evolution, or the existence of god.