Can't rationally argue for any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions

I think the a topic of whether or not the universe had a designer or designers and the issue of the first uncaused cause are all very interesting and worth a serious debate, maybe in some other topic, this is called deism. In this debate I am not considering deism as a religion I refer only to any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions: http://www.123exp-beliefs.com... My main point is that even if one grants deism as a rational standing point it remains to be seen how one can make a rational argument for any particular religion from this point. People many times fail to notice this fact, but arguing for a designer is totally insufficient for making claims about a specific religious belief. Note that even if a theist was somehow able to demonstrate conclusive evidence that this designer/starter god is a personal god which cares about human affairs, answers prayers, and interferes in the natural course of the world, in the form of miracles, all his work would still be ahead of him in showing that his specific religion is correct since: - All the religions that exist or that have existed in the past make claims about personal gods and miracles. - These religions are incompatible, so they can't all be true. Even if we could somehow narrow the list of religions down to the religions that are practiced today, it would still be impossible to know which of them are actually true. If you think you your chances are one in three you are gravely mistaken, because there are many additional religions that exist today or have existed in the past. So how can one choose ? There are also the more exotic religions, how about "Sathya Sai Baba" the god man ? The current estimates are that he has around 6,000,000 followers, some argue that there are up to 100,000,000 followers, many of them claim that he is a true miracle worker and they have seen his amazing miracles ! see http://en.wikipedia.org...... Imagine a person like this Sathya Sai Baba living 2000 years ago, when we had no knowledge of science. If anything, believing in Sathya Sai Baba claims is more rational than believing in the Jewish, Christian or Muslim claims since, at least, we can say the following: a. We know for sure that this person actually exists b. The people that claim Sathya Sai Baba is a god man are alive today and can be interviewed This is much more than we can say for our ancient religions. Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ancient eye witnesses, hearsay, or people just being certain of something to be true are just not good enough to be considered evidence, not to mention extraordinary evidence. One way to validate our worldview is to verify it for coherency. For example if I catch my wife cheating on me I can't continue to claim that she is faithful to me because that would be incoherent. So the worldview of someone that claims that the historical data that exists in the form of the gospel or in some religious book is enough to substantiate extraordinary evidence for Christianity must also agree that the data that exists about UFOs, Big foot, Vampires and Sathya Sai Baba are more than sufficient as well, otherwise he is being inconsistent, like a cheating faithful wife. Please note that the topic of the debate is about rationality. If you claim that a specific religion can be taught by appealing to emotion or to "leaps of faith" then I have no argument with you, I am only arguing with people that claim that their religion is a result of rational thinking. Your job as con is to find a rational justification for believing your specific religion, why you choose to believe it specifically, and to explain if you also believe in the other extraordinary claims I mentioned, and if not why not ? Good luck.