>everything is Subject to change, if necessary

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean the topic is not objective. A topic can be objective yet can still change. E.g. The Earth is round in 2022. Maybe it will be flat once it get hits by a meteor; but the first statement is still objectively true.

​

>Your conclusion has absolutely no weight if you cant prove the premises. ( So like the best sounding chord, i cannot imagine a superior religion.)

All arguments should start with observation of the natural world, but they don't have to end with observation. If I put 2 spoons in an empty box and then another 2 spoons, I conclude with certainty that there are 4 spoons in the box. This could be verified with observation but it doesn't need to be.

​

>There is a possibility that there are no Truths.

Is it true that "there is a possibility that there are no truths"? The statement must refer to reality, otherwise it is just meaningless or is merely expressing our feelings and nothing more.

To put same point in a different way: Either object A exists in reality or it doesn't. If we say "Object A exists" and "Object A does not exist", one of those two statements must necessarily be true; i.e. it aligns with reality.

​

>"I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions."
Sounds to me like saying Santana is better than Gary Moore, and i will show you why.

"Reasonable" does not mean "it makes sense to me"; it is similar to "probable" without the need to be quantified, and it means it is more likely to be true than not.