"At this stage, yes, anything that is true can go in the argument"

No no, eh yes, but your argument also works with other than True stuff, and that's the Problem, more at the bottom.

"Agreed as well. As I explain in the next video, the modern-day definition is actually "search for truth that is not empirically verifiable" (otherwise it is part of science)."

Science is the most reliable way to knowledge, they don't produce objective truths in your sense. everything is Subject to change, if necessary. There is a part of the world, where empirical data represents it the best (e.g. Illness etc., Better not believe them Tom cuises ;) ) and there is a part of the world we can't extrapolate Data - e.g. Morality, because this is a emergent phenomenon. (Nothing special about that, picture a piano: there are no chords on it, still we talk about them. You will never find a chord on your Piano, only the keys, and our taste dictates what keys sound good. The problem is, that the Premises have to be verifiable, and any Argument not trying to prove the premises is a bad one. Your conclusion has absolutely no weight if you cant prove the premises. ( So like the best sounding chord, i cannot imagine a superior religion.)

"The statement "there is no objective truth" is a self-contradiction, because then this very statement cannot be objectively true ;)"

No it is not, you just made a linguistic game out of it. There is a possibility that there are no Truths. I just wrote objectively to make clear that i don't mean Stuff like "I like sandwiches". My comment is not a positive claim, its leaving a possibility open and you just shiftet the burden of proof in a linguistic manner so to say. Your thinking comes from Perikles old ontological view, but there is no proof that ontologically speaking we live in a "completed" world. Also proving stuff only in Language is not the way to go, you need to connect it to the "World."

(If you want to know more about this, read "The promise of artificial intelligence" by B.C. Smith, (existential argument against general AI for now). cool book*.)*

So, here we go, back to the Top:

The argument also works with logically impossible stuff.

-2. "If a squared Ball is True" (for example)

(--> philosophy might not find it.)

So if Christianity would not be true, Philosophy might not find it, and that's what they have (not) done for the last thousand years.

How can u access that Christianity has higher chances than Islam, Bhuddism, or the logically impossible Squared Ball? That's the real question, if you can answer that get ready for a Big Award from Humanity because Ppls trying what your doing for 2000 years now and they continuously failed to do so. I'm not trying to mock you btw.

For your future argument:

"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. Great, but if you want to prove something else than your taste, you really need to watch out and make sure your premises are checked, and connected to the world. I will take a bow if you show me otherwise, good luck sir.

I commented on your Yt aswell, but can't you switch out Christianity in your argument with any other thing (e.g. the Spaghetti monster) ?

The real deal is to explain why you put Christianity in your Argument, and not anything else imaginable.

Plus, your definition of Philosophy stems from an old Tradition, i don't think all modern Philosophers would agree. Philosophy is the love for Wisdom, and that can entail the fact that there are no truths at all (in an objective sense atleast). Greetings