2+2=4 is an undisputed fact (except by the contrarian).
The nature of G-d is disputed.
Certainly the words of God are disputed, as are those who speak/wrote the words for god that we can read today. 5 out of 6 people profess if not practice, some form of religious observance. The greater the distance in ideology among the religions, the more peaceful seemingly. The Krishna is not warring with Scientology.
The Truth should be discernable, don’t you think? Can the nature of God be determined as truthful as 2+2 apparent to everyone? I think so, though I can’t define it.
Mohammedans claim Jesus Christ did not die on the cross, but survived the Passion or was switched with an imposter at the last moment, then went to India.
Jews (some) say He was a extreme student of a respected rabbi turned magician that was killed by the Roman authority, though the Jewish authorities were not displeased or overly concerned.
Some say all of it is myth and legend.
Finding the Ark of the Covenant with supernatural tablets inside might convince the myth crowd to believe in God, but it would not resolve the Mohammedan/Catholic-Christian/Jewish dilemma.
The defense, rather than repudiation of certain behavior in other threads makes me wonder if fact, truth, and reason are all relative though I find that difficult to accept. Environment and indoctrination are significant factors, but I think Truth is stronger and obvious particularly if an individual is free to change if they decide to.
The Atheist may reason for lack of physical evidence the existence of God, and the Catholic may use Scripture & Catechism, as the Mohammedan the Qur’an & hadith; the Jew, the Talmud and Torah to prove His existance.
Is there a way to determine if reason is being suspended to accept something as a fact?
An aside: Is Muhammad the only non-Jew prophet? Meaning, all the OT prophets mentioned in the Koran and Torah were Jews as far as I know. Christ, accepted as only a prophet by Islam, was a Jew. Is that a significant factor to anyone?