I don't. I can only speak for myself.

> When talking about the rediscovery of religion, I included the word “known.” This fact can be asserted quite easily.

Really. How do you know Mohammed didn't restore God's true church? Or Joseph Smith? In those cases they claimed to be prophets who God revealed new scripture to. Or do they "not count" because their religions were similar to existing ones?

> You say you think this has happened. Doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that every time it happened it was in a place that was exposed to the corrupted version? Why wasn’t the pure church reborn in China or India? Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

Like I said, the church goes off the rails a lot. Even in the Bible, the church is constantly falling apart because the people are wicked. The pure church may have been reborn in China/India/Americas but went completely off the rails and thousands of years later it is unrecognizable. How do you know ancient indigenous diety legends aren't referring to the same God/Jesus that we refer to?

> Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

There very well may have been evidence of an ancient American judeo-christian church, but the conquistadors burned so many historical records in the 1500s because they were "of the devil" we have very little to go on.

> Everything is consistent with it all being made up

Well yeah, how can mortal life be an unbiased, faith-based experience if one could simply prove the existence of God empirically?

Consider a group of monkeys that act differently when they have evidence that they are being observed.

I believe one purpose of life is to prove to God and ourselves what kind of person we are. We will act differently if we know we are being observed vs. if there is uncertainty.