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.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.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. Also, if this were to happen, this would be classified as a religious experience which is subjective to different people, so this experience would still not be an objective way of knowing which religion is true.4. Just because something is possible does not mean it is likely or that evidence supports this theory/possibility. The chances of God physically presenting Himself on earth are the same as the tooth fairy doing that.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), 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).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.7. I haven't moved the goal post by asking you to prove the motion false now, which means I would like to know by the end of this debate how it is possible to objectively know which religion is true and not many years into the future. The motion is still the same. The sentence you quoted from me ("Nevertheless, this time travel assumption does you little good to prove the motion false now today.") was in the context of your argument that we could know if God exists and which religion is true by time travelling back to "pre-creation", when technology develops in the future. This is impossible because time started with Big Bang and if God created it you couldn't go beyond the Big Bang. You are relying on the possibility of time travel in the future to objectively know which religion is true. Even if time travel becomes possible, I've already explained how you still can't reach beyond the Big Bang with time travel to meet God. Hence your argument bears little relevance to refute the motion.8. Although I only used Saudi Arabia as an example to demonstrate, I also mentioned in round 2 "Hence, you can take any country world wide and see that most people have stayed in the religion they were born into, whilst only the minority of people converted to another religion which they were not born into." If you want other examples then take Norway and America, two Christian countries in which most people who are born in Christian families have stayed Christians. It is a fact that most people stay in the religion they are born into in any country. To see this for yourself (http://www.nationmaster.com...), you don't need me to show you sources for every country, anyone who is interested can look up the number of Christians born in America and subtract that number with converts from Christianity to another religion in America. If you honestly believe most people don't stay in the religion they are born into, then many countries like Pakistan wouldn't have majority of muslims living there and America and Sweden wouldn't have Christians as the majority population living in those countries. But they do and it is a fact!9. Anyone willing to accept the objective evidence to know which religion is true would reach one same religion. Obviously if someone doesn't have access to this objective evidence or just doesn't want to accept it, then they won't know. However, anyone going through the objective method of knowing which religion is true, would arrive at one same religion. There is no such objective way of finding the true religion in this world.Unless you had evidence to support your personal statement that you have seen a deity, we would say your claim to know this religion's God is true, is subjective- not objective. It's your subjective belief and opinion that this deity is real, not objective which you can prove.10. Once again, I haven't changed the motion. The motion is still the same debate title above. "You cannot objectively know which religion is true (if any)" The word 'you' applies generally to anyone reading the motion, not just my opponent, although it is up to you to refute the motion. If you prove it is possible to objectively know which religion is true, then anyone and everyone following your objective method should find the true religion (if any). For example, if I state 'you can objectively know 1+1=2 or the earth is a sphere' I am not only referring to one single person when I say 'you', I mean that if everyone accepts the objective evidence I present for the statement of the earth being a sphere, then everyone would arrive at the conclusion that the earth is a sphere.11. If you are an atheist and don't believe in a religion, you still should be clear of the motion which I clarified in round one:"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.""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." I assumed my opponent would be a follower of a religion (as most people are) however, by accepting the debate, you should be aware the motion requires you to prove a specific religion is objectively true (regardless of your own faith, although, if you were a believer, I thought you may have wanted to use your own religion): 'You Cannot Objectively Know Which Religion Is True (if any).' As you see, I have specifically said 'which religion', which, in case you misinterpreted the motion, is asking for a specific 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 haven't said in round one that by accepting the debate, if my opponent is an atheist or agnostic, that they can ignore the 'which religion' part of the motion. This should be obvious!In conclusion, everyone should vote for the motion, that you cannot objectively know which religion is true (if any), as I have demonstrated through my arguments how many ways of knowing the true religion, is subjective; there is no objective method. You may argue your holy scripture or teachings of religion are unique, but so can anyone else of another religion claim. It just proves again how everything is subjective when it comes to 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.Bear in mind if you present new arguments in round 4 I won't be able to respond to them, as this is my last round. Thank you funwiththoughts for this interesting and engaging debate.