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

"1. Your argument that we can know, if God were physically detected, is a very weak argument as it is extremely unlikely God would make Himself physically detectable; when He hasn't done this so far in the history of humanity (which can be proved). For example with this argument, we could even know the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster can exist if they were physically detected. Although this is unlikely it is possible so we can know if they exist- this is a weak argument, although a point nevertheless. " The debate is not called "is it likely that you will know which religion is true. " It is still possible, therefore it is not something that "cannot" happen. And you acknowledge that it is possible, although unlikely, hence agreeing with my position. "2. If you say yes and God would lift the stone anyway, this proves He can't do what the question is asking (which means He can't do something). The question is specifically asking for an object too heavy for God to lift. If He creates such an object, it is, by definition, impossible to lift for Him as it is too heavy. So there is something God can't do. " This assumes that God is bound by the law of identity. This is impossible, because he created it. "3. If the only way to objectively know which religion is true, is by its God coming to this world to prove His power to you, it seems you will never be able to find out, as we know this won't happen, regardless of the possibility. " My opponent asserts this won't happen, but does not give any reasons. It is possible, however unlikely, and therefore it is not something that cannot happen. "4. Just because something is possible does not mean it is likely or that evidence supports this theory/possibility. " The debate is not called "does evidence support a particular religion? " or "Is it likely that you will know which religion is true? " If you CANNOT do something, then you cannot do it, under ANY circumstances. "The chances of God physically presenting Himself on earth are the same as the tooth fairy doing that. " Correct. And if this were to happen, we could objectively know that the tooth fairy is real. "5. I agree it is possible to know God objectively exists if He presented Himself on earth to everyone (not just to you or one person, as this becomes subjective), " My opponent admits it is possible to know God objectively exists (and presumably by extension, which religion is true). This is all I am saying. "however, you can use this argument to justify it is possible to objectively know everything which can exist. For example, my opponent could have used this argument to prove it is possible we can objectively know if a 1000 legged sea monster and the tooth fairy exist, if they presented themselves to us. Of course everything can be possible if it were presented to us, but this argument is still not a strong one to make, as anything and everything the imagination allows becomes possible (although extremely unlikely). " This is absolutely, 100% correct, and does absolutely nothing to refute my argument. It is still possible to know, however unlikely, which is all I am saying. "6. I have not modified the statement by using the word 'until' in one of my statements you quoted. The sentence was in the context of your argument that it is possible to objectively know God of a religion exists if He presented Himself to us. I argued until He does that, we cannot know objectively which religion is true, as your only argument apparently is that we can know which religion is true if God came to earth and proved Himself. As far as your arguments of 'is possible and you can know', refer to my arguments number 4 and 5 above. You haven't given any more arguments or ways to refute the motion, other than if God came to earth we can know which religion is true. " All of this is irrelevant, because the fact is, if God came to Earth we can know. My opponent admits to this, but insists this doesn't count because it's "unlikely" (it is still possible, though. ) "Anyone willing to accept the objective evidence to know which religion is true would reach one same religion. " Well yes, but since the method I have laid out has not happened as of yet, then this bears little relevance. ""My opponent is expected to prove how we can objectively find out that any particular religion is in fact true, without the need of subjectivity or biases in finding the true religion. " My method does allow one to find a particular religion. I cannot say which, as it would depend which God comes to Earth. ""If my opponent believes in a 'true religion' which is an objective and universal truth and not that true religion is subjective to each person, then my opponent needs to prove this claim. " " Quote-mine. This is saying that IF I believe this claim (which I don't), then I have to prove it. Since I don't believe in the claim, there is no need for me to prove it. "As you see, I have specifically said 'which religion', which, in case you misinterpreted the motion, is asking for a specific religion. " Actually, the motion says "You cannot objectively know which religion is true". If we take the full context, rather than quote-mining two words, then we can see that it is simply asking for a way to know which religion, but does not actually ask which religion. "'Which religion' means you have to prove how it is possible to objectively know which religion is true, even if you don't follow one yourself" I HAVE proven that you can objectively know which religion is true. I just didn't say which religion. My method would work for any number of different religions, but whichever one it ended up working for, we could objectively know that that is the true religion. "My opponent's arguments were mainly that you can time travel back to creation to meet God and God can come into the world to prove His religion right, however, I have refuted both of these arguments in the debate. " You have indeed refuted my time travel argument. However, you did NOT refute that God can come into the world to prove His religion right-you only said it was unlikely (which would still make it possible, thereby making his claim that you CANNOT know invalid) and said it could be used for a number of different arguments (Certainly true, but not relevant to the resolution at hand).