Many arguments, one truth. Every view steelmanned; every citation traceable.
Who wrote the Fourth Gospel — the apostle John son of Zebedee, a distinct 'John the Elder,' or a later Johannine community — and how much historical weight can its authorship claim bear?
How and when did the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon come to be recognized, and does the process of its formation vindicate or undermine its authority?
When were Matthew, Mark, and Luke written, and does the evidence favor composition before or after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE?
Do the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible converge on Jesus of Nazareth as their fulfilment, fail to be met by him on the concrete criteria Judaism reads them to require, or acquire their apparent fit only in retrospect as the texts shaped the telling?
Did Jesus of Nazareth exist as a historical person, or is the Gospel figure a myth that was later given a historical setting?
Do the ~400,000 variants among the New Testament manuscripts leave the text reliably recoverable, or has the transmission — including theologically motivated 'orthodox corruptions' — corrupted it in ways that matter?
Was the Pentateuch composed by Moses, or woven together from four independent sources (J, E, D, P) of widely different dates, with the Priestly law latest of all?
Was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth discovered empty on the Sunday after his crucifixion, and if so, what best explains it?
Does 1 Cor 15:3-8 preserve a Jerusalem tradition formulated within a few years of the crucifixion, and if so, what does that tradition actually establish?
Is belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth a rationally warranted historical inference from the first-century evidence?
Do per se (essentially ordered) causal series require a first uncaused cause?
Does the existence of nonresistant nonbelief show that there is no perfectly loving God?
Must religious belief be proportioned to evidence to be rational, or can faith be warranted—or even reasonable—beyond, or without, theoretical proof?
Under uncertainty about God, does prudential rationality favour cultivating belief because the expected value of wagering for God dominates wagering against?
Do religious and mystical experiences give genuine evidence that a divine reality exists?
Is the existence of conscious minds better explained by God than by naturalism?
If naturalism is true, can any belief be held *because* of the rational grounds for it — or is 'reasoning' merely one more non-rational effect of non-rational causes?
Does the amount and distribution of apparently gratuitous evil make God's existence improbable?
Does the life-permitting adjustment of the fundamental constants and early-universe conditions warrant inference to a cosmic designer?
Does the universe's beginning require a transcendent, personal cause?
Does the existence of a contingent universe require a necessary being as its sufficient reason?
Is the existence of any evil logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God?
Do objective moral values, duties, and the moral life itself require God as their ground?
Can God's existence be demonstrated from the concept of God alone, by reason alone, prior to any appeal to the world?
Where does the burden of proof lie in the God debate, and is disbelief the rational default?
Does Darwinian evolution conflict with Christian belief, and if not, which Christian reading of origins best integrates the biological evidence?
Is the 'design inference' of the Intelligent Design movement a legitimate scientific research program, a restatement of the classical design argument, or neither?
Is the exclusion of supernatural explanation constitutive of science, a defeasible working preference, or an unjustified philosophical restriction that a theist should reject?
Can testimony ever rationally establish that a law of nature was set aside by divine action — and is 'violation of law' even the right conception of a miracle?
What does contemporary cosmology license us to say about the beginning of the universe — and how should the scriptural tradition be read alongside it?
If naturalism and evolution are both true, can the naturalist rationally trust the very cognitive faculties by which she believes them?
Is science the only (or the paradigm) source of genuine knowledge, or are there real domains — logic, mathematics, ethics, metaphysics, the preconditions of science itself — that science cannot in principle establish?
Does the origin of the first living systems require a designing intelligence, or is it the kind of thing an unguided nature can be expected to produce?
Did the Gentile Times end in 1914 — 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem's monarchy — inaugurating Christ's invisible presence and heavenly reign (the Watch Tower chronology), or is the whole scheme a date-setting exegesis that founders on Jesus' own refusal to fix times and seasons, on a disputed base-date, and on a record of failed predictions?
Is the ground of all things a single reality with which the self is ultimately identical (Advaita), or Being Itself who creates a world that is really distinct from him (classical theism)?
Is the human person a constructed, impermanent bundle of aggregates with no abiding self (Buddhist anattā), or a real and enduring soul made in the image of God (the Christian imago Dei)?
Do the Bible's own texts predict Muhammad — as the 'prophet like Moses' of Deuteronomy 18 and the 'Comforter' (Paraclete) of John 14–16 read as Ahmad — or do those texts, read in their own contexts, point elsewhere?
Is the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus, the people Israel personified, or an exilic figure whose messianic reading is retrospective?
Is Jesus of Nazareth the virgin-born prophet-Messiah and servant of Allah who was not crucified (the Qur'anic ʿIsa), or the incarnate Son of God who was crucified and rose (Nicene Christology) — and what can history say about the difference?
Is the human being caught in a beginningless, karma-governed cycle of death and rebirth from which the goal is release — or does one embodied life run once toward death, resurrection, and final judgment?
Can human life be meaningful and morality real and binding if there is no God — and if so, does the secular ethic keep the fruit of Christian morality while denying its root?
Is Jesus Christ the uncreated Word, consubstantial with the one God (Nicene orthodoxy), or the firstborn spirit son of an embodied divine Father — one of a plurality of divine beings united in will rather than essence (Latter-day Saint Christology)?
Is the Qur'an as read today a perfectly preserved copy of the revelation delivered to Muhammad, or does its transmission history show the same human editorial processes that mark other ancient scriptures?
Are the world's religions culturally conditioned responses to one divine Reality, mutually canceling testimonies, or is one tradition rationally warranted in claiming distinctive truth?
Is a human being set right with God by submission and righteous deeds weighed in the scales under Allah's mercy (Islamic soteriology), or by grace through faith on the ground of Christ's substitutionary atonement (Christian soteriology) — and how much of the apparent works-vs-grace gap survives a fair reading of each tradition's own texts?
When a person dies, does an immortal soul survive to face either the vision of God or unending conscious torment (traditional Christianity), or is the soul the mortal person themselves — unconscious in the grave until resurrection, and the finally wicked destroyed forever in a 'second death' that is annihilation, not eternal pain (Watch Tower conditionalism)?
Is God strictly one in every sense (Islamic tawhīd), or one in essence and three in persons (Nicene Trinitarianism) — and how should each tradition's reading of the other be judged?
Does Scripture divide the redeemed into two classes with two destinies — a heavenly 'little flock' of exactly 144,000 who rule with Christ and an earthly 'great crowd' who live forever on a paradise earth (Watch Tower) — or does it know one people of God with one hope, in which the 144,000 is a symbolic number and the 'great multitude' of Revelation 7:9 stands with them before the throne (historic Christianity)?
Did the Jews and Christians corrupt their scriptures (taḥrīf), so that the present Bible is unreliable where it contradicts the Qur'an — or does the manuscript and patristic evidence show a text transmitted, not falsified?
Is the holy spirit a divine person — the third person of the Trinity, who speaks, wills, can be grieved and lied to — or Jehovah's impersonal 'active force,' his invisible power and influence, with the personal language of Scripture read as mere personification?
Does the Qur'an's inimitable Arabic eloquence — its standing challenge that none can produce 'a surah like it' — authenticate Muhammad's prophethood as a public miracle?
Are the commandments of the Torah perpetually binding — such that the 'new covenant' of Jeremiah 31 can only be a renewal of the same Law — or did the Mosaic covenant serve a provisional purpose now fulfilled and superseded in Christ?
Is the New World Translation's rendering of John 1:1c as 'the Word was a god' (with 'other' at Col 1:16 and ~237 restorations of 'Jehovah' in the NT) a defensible translation of the Greek, or a doctrinally driven mistranslation that a cluster of undisputed deity-texts overturns?
Does Isaiah 7:14 predict a virgin birth fulfilled in Jesus, or a young woman's ordinary child in Ahaz's own day — and does Matthew's Greek citation misread the Hebrew?
Is the God of Israel numerically and absolutely one, such that no personal plurality can be predicated of the divine essence (Jewish strict monotheism) — or is the one God of the Shema eternally three persons in one essence (Nicene Trinitarianism), and can the Hebrew Bible itself be read as already latent with that plurality?
Is Jesus Christ the uncreated Word, consubstantial (homoousios) with the one God (Nicene orthodoxy), or the created 'only-begotten' — the first and highest of Jehovah's creatures, identified with Michael the archangel, subordinate to the Father, with the holy spirit as God's impersonal 'active force' (Watch Tower Christology)?