Become a theist

Everything is made through God's word and spirit.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

God does not pop into existence, there was never a time when God did not exist.

Time was created by God.

God can certainly create from nothing.

But yes, God is in everything. That doesn't mean that a rock is part of God.

(IFF) they are unfalsifiable claims (THEN) their truth value cannot be either confirmed or denied.  This is our epistemological limit.

The coherence and correspondence of what is said can be checked out to their reasonableness. If they make prophetic utterances the quality and quantity of those statements can be checked out as to the falsifiability of the claim. 

When is the earliest recoverable document/manuscript from each religion found? Do you know the answer?

The earliest Hindu texts are from approximately 1000 BCE. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hindu_texts

The earliest Zoroastrian texts are from approximately 2000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

The earliest Chinese mythological texts are from approximately 3000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mythology#Shells_and_bones

Then you say, "I don't believe in any of these fake gods because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".

Then I say, "I don't believe in the YHWH because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".

I say give me the evidence that you believe makes these three gods believable as opposed to Yahweh so I can dispute your claims. 

Forget about the "YHWH" for a second.  Start from scratch.  The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).

Then you say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about any of these fake gods because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".

Then I say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about the YHWH because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".

I asked for the reasonableness of these gods and you avoided the proof or evidence. I am quite willing to discuss the reasonableness of the biblical God and I have offered to demonstrate that He is reasonable to believe as opposed to your three gods. 

The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).

It might be that the moon snuck down one night and scooped up all the evidence so therefore you are right. Do you understand anything outside of your playground rhetoric?

That is an ad hom. It implies that my answers are childlike and rhetorical. It avoids answering the question I asked you. So, it attacks the man rather than the question. 

It appears to be a mild characterization of your rhetoric specifically and not of you as a person.

It would be similar to someone saying something like, "these atheists don't even know what basic logic is" or "atheists just deny the reality of my god because they won't admit how biased they are", or something like that, which I would consider more of a genuine expression of exasperation rather than a "personal attack" or "insult".

(IFF) the "YHWH" was the first and only "thing" to exist,

 

(THEN) everything that is created or shaped by the "YHWH" MUST BE MADE FROM PIECES OF THE "YHWH".

False analogy. Is what you create, say a painting, you (a piece of you), or is it an expression from you? 

False analogy.  I am not a god.  I am not the first and only "thing" to exist.

Imagine for a second that you are god, and you pop into existence.

You look around and there is nothing, just you, all alone.

You then decide, hey I should make some stuff.

Do you go to the store and buy some art supplies?

No.

Because there is no store.

You are going to have to make things out of yourself.

For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk 

I'll answer these alleged contradictions when I get some spare time.

Let me help you out - http://tektonics.org/film/gameshow.html

The point isn't about whether or not the contradictions can be rationalized.

The point is that all ancient texts have similar contradictions AND similar rationalizations.

God does not pop into existence. He always is.

You say atheistic scientists assume a scenario and build evidence from it. When it comes to explaining the origins of existence, you're more or less right(I say more or less because they're more like educated guesses than assumptions, but still). However, in order for your "evidence" to make sense, you have to assume your god exists. So, in other words, you do the exact same thing.

If your god does exists, then your evidence makes perfect sense.

However, if your god doesn't exist, your evidence is the stuff of psycho babble.

This is why you're not supposed to make assumptions. Evidence based on assumptions equates to nothing more than speculation and imagination. I know you'll never admit that, even though it's true. That's fine. You Christians cling to your delusions like a life line. No amount of proving your arguments false will change your mind. One needs to be interested in finding truth to be willing to change their beliefs. I've literally never met a theist of any kind willing to do that.

I admit we both start from presuppositions in building our worldviews (atheists and Christians)

The earliest Hindu texts are from approximately 1000 BCE. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hindu_texts

The earliest Zoroastrian texts are from approximately 2000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

The earliest Chinese mythological texts are from approximately 3000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mythology#Shells_and_bones

Are you saying there are manuscripts from these time frames???

I'm asking for the earliest actual manuscripts retrieved from each. 

The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).

What is the earliest manuscript of these three religions?

The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).

Again, you never answered my original question. I'll add another question. How many ancient copies are found from each of these three and when do they date back to?

I have no idea what your personal standard of evidence are.  Although I have a strong feeling that you would not accept prima facie, a writing that said something like "and then the prophet said, in 200 years there will be a war" and then in the same document, "and it came to pass, exactly 200 years later, that there was a war".  If you want some examples of ancient contradictions and specific rationalizations, 

Take for instance Daniel 2 and the four kingdoms or empires that are easily discernable by their descriptions and later mention of two of them. Then Daniel 9 speaks of six conditions that would take place within a specific period of time in which a Messiah would be killed and THEN the city and sanctuary would be destroyed with details of wars and desolation. The reference is AD 70 when all this happened. Copies of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back 200 years before AD 70. Or take Daniel 12 in which all prophecy concerning Daniel's people would be fulfilled.

How is the information equivalent? Do you know anything of Hindu prophecies and how they relate to human history to date? I don't see anything specific there.  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_eschatology

I have checked other beliefs when I was younger (i.e., Zen Buddhism, New Age teachings, Confucianism), plus others since (Islam, Atheism, J.W.'s, Mormonism, Wicca/Paganism, Bahaism), to engage with others, and the factual nature of prophecy and the unity of the Bible rings true, among other considerations. Prophecy is very reasonable. If Christianity is true then all else is false because of the biblical claims. I don't have to check out every other religion because they say contrary things. 

I admit we both start from presuppositions in building our worldviews (atheists and Christians)

Not quite. When you use a personal pronoun like "you" and "your" it becomes an ad hom directed at the person. 

False analogy.  I am not a god.  I am not the first and only "thing" to exist.

Both you and He create things. The difference is He is omnipotent and omniscient and you are limited in your ability to create.  

Imagine for a second that you are god, and you pop into existence.

God does not pop into existence. He always is. Someone eternal does not have a beginning or end. 

Because there is no store.

You are going to have to make things out of yourself.

Another false analogy. God is able to speak things into existence.

The point isn't about whether or not the contradictions can be rationalized.

The point is that all ancient texts have similar contradictions AND similar rationalizations.

No, the point is that for a large amount of the claimed contradictions I see on these threads, the person making the claim isolates a Scriptural verse or takes it out of context. 

Nothing doesn't exist. That is its defining characteristic.

I am not talking about god, I am talking about God.

Created things are not part of what is uncreated, that makes no sense.

End of debate. You lose.

You are not God.

The earliest Hindu texts are from approximately 1000 BCE. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hindu_texts

The earliest Zoroastrian texts are from approximately 2000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

The earliest Chinese mythological texts are from approximately 3000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mythology#Shells_and_bones

Are you saying there are manuscripts from these time frames???

Figure it out.  (IFF) you believe that the older the text is, the more "true" it is, the Christian scriptures (codified in 325 CE) are not at the top of that list.

The religions may be older but how reliable is the information we have of these religious texts? 

Is God in everything? Yes.

Is God everywhere? Yes.

Did God create everything in existence from a previously existing substance? No.

It all came from God.

But created things are not God.

It would be incorrect to bow down to a statue and say, "This is God". 

The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).

What is the earliest manuscript of these three religions?

They are all older than Abraham (late 6th century BCE).  Does it matter how old they are?  Would you abandon your religion if the dates were ancient enough?  Is that your primary criteria?

10 oldest surviving documents - https://listverse.com/2013/11/10/10-oldest-surviving-documents-of-their-type-in-the-world-2/

Abraham did not grow up christian.

Abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees, which is in modern Iraq, near Nasiriyah in the southeastern part of the country. Joshua 24:2 says that Abraham and his father worshiped idols. We can make some educated guesses about their religion by looking at the history and religious artifacts from that period.

Ur of the Chaldees was an ancient city that flourished until about 300 BC. The great ziggurat of Ur was built by Ur-Nammu around 2100 BC and was dedicated to Nanna, the moon god. The moon was worshiped as the power that controlled the heavens and the life cycle on earth. To the Chaldeans, the phases of the moon represented the natural cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death and also set the measurement of their yearly calendar. Among the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, Nanna was supreme, because he was the source of fertility for crops, herds, and families. Prayers and offerings were offered to the moon to invoke its blessing. 

https://www.gotquestions.org/Abraham-religion.html