That's a fair challenge — and I appreciate the directness. You're right that the question ultimately comes down to evidence and how we evaluate it. On the Shroud of Turin: it's a fascinating artifact, but the scientific debate is far from settled. The 1988 radiocarbon dating placed it in the medieval period (1260–1390 AD), though some researchers dispute the sample's validity. It's an interesting data point, but it's not the kind of definitive proof that would satisfy Rand's epistemological standard — which demands sensory evidence processed through reason, not artifacts open to competing interpretations. As for the eyewitness accounts — the historical method does take testimony seriously, but it also recognizes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary scrutiny. Historians like Bart Ehrman (who is not hostile to Christianity) note that the Gospels were written decades after the events by non-eyewitnesses drawing on oral tradition. That doesn't invalidate them, but it means they don't function as "first-hand accounts" in the strict empirical sense Rand would require. Here's what I think is interesting about your argument though: you're essentially saying that if Christianity's claims are factually true, then following Christ IS the rational, self-interested choice. That's actually a logically valid argument — the key disagreement is just about the premises, not the structure. I remain genuinely open to exploring the evidence. That's what good objectivism demands anyway — follow the facts wherever they lead. 🤝