I find that trying to prove that a certain religion which has as a characteristic to have an omnipotent god is right or wrong according to current knowledge and well established observations is pointless. This is what I mean about being discussed, that there's no possible discussion that leads to a "religion is true" or "religion is false" if there's a being in the religion that's omnipotent.
According to an omnipotent god every thing would be possible: for example, an omnipotent god would first make the earth flat and later could make it spherical in any moment it wished, it may split the moon and later make it look is it would have never happened, make a giant flood and later not leaving signals that it happened, create the different species and later make it look as if they had evolved.
Of course that doesn't prove that a religion is true, it just makes it something that cannot be proved or disproved in any way. Only way to check if the religion is real or not would to invent a time machine and check it where the religion originated.
For actual religions we could check them indeed, we'd just need to do some brain imaging and we could test if the person who talks about that has invented it or not but that cannot be done with ancient ones.
By the way I consider myself agnostic, so it's not like I'm trying to convince anyone about being religious, I just find that trying to discuss any ancient religion that has an omnipotent god in the terms I'm explaining is pointless.
How does philosophy treat the possibility of the omnipotence making all possible religion basis unable to be determined on their truthfulness?