> ...no one can say with complete authority which [religion] is correct and which ones aren't.

It's good that you framed this point in the language of authority, because that's what it all comes down to. A human being doesn't inherently perceive "universal truth", so he has to base his understanding of that truth on someone else's authority. If no one like God exists who would have that authority, then we'll most likely never know universal truth. If someone like God *does* exist, then we have a source of authoritative statements about universal truth, and the new problem is, "how do we know if that authority has specifically revealed anything to us?"

The basic conflict between religions hangs on this question of whether and how God (or God's equivalent) has made authoritative statements about the universe. It's not a matter of claiming personal authority to answer questions of universal truth, but of trying to identify revelations from an authority higher than ourselves. This is why I don't like to say things like "what *I* believe is such-and-such", because that invites people to see the claim as subjective. If I don't know something or I'm just making an educated guess, I'll say so. If I'm talking apologetics, I try to stick to objective claims that another person could evaulate for herself.

Just another $0.02 in this discussion.

Iss