Ayn Rand and Objectivism - https://aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy/#tab-1-metaphysics
1. If we exist in a world where facts are immutable, then there is no God.
2. The law of identity states that A is A; this means that facts are unchangeable, no matter how much one wills, prays, or wishes them to be different, and ‘transcendence’ is impossible.
3. Therefore, is no God. (1, 2 MP)

I take issue with premise two of Rand’s argument. My counter argument is as follows
1. If our certainty about facts can change, then we can never be certain that facts are immutable.
2. With new break throughs in science occurring throughout history and through modern day, then we redefine facts constantly.
3. Therefore, we can never be certain that facts are immutable. (1, 2 MP)

Facts can change, at least our certainty regarding facts can change. When Galileo proposed that we live in a heliocentric universe, a fact contrary to the science of the times, he was killed. Those that convicted Galileo of heresy were so certain that the heliocentric universe idea was wrong that they put Galileo to death. This example goes to show that we cannot solely trust facts because we may perceive something to be true one day, only for the availability of knew knowledge to change our perception the next.

Another issue with claiming that facts are always immutable is that facts are determined to be true in different ways. Some are found through experience, others are found via experiments, others are taught and passed down. An example of the first method of finding fact is that after being tortured, someone can resolve that torturing is wrong and should never be done to another person. An example of the second scenario is Rosalind Franklin discovering the helix structure of DNA. An example of the third is a parent instructing their child to stop, drop, and roll if they are ever on fire. While these could all be labeled as ‘facts’, they are all different types of facts and can be disproven in different ways. The torture example is more of a belief or moral. While it grounds many laws, court rulings, and other practices, if the all of the people in the world tomorrow decided torture is not so bad because they have never been tortured, then thee world as we know it today would be restructured tomorrow. Next, the Rosalind Franklin example disproves itself. Franklin determined part of the truth. With more knowledge and experimentation, it was discovered that DNA is not simply a helix, but a double helix. Because we do not have all of the knowledge available to us, at least to our knowledge, can we really be certain of the nature of the universe and that all the scientific and mathematical principles are true? Now, this brings us to the third example I presented: the stop, drop, and roll example. Say the child did catch on fire, twice. The first time, the child listens to their parent and stops, drops, and rolls. The second time, the child panics and somehow manages to extinguish the fire in a more efficient way than what their parents advised. There now exists two different facts within this child’s knowledge, and they wonder what one is more true, to listen to their parents or to trust their empirical experience. While neither could be wrong, this does show a conflict that more knowledge can be overwhelming and can consequently mask the truth. Fact is too general of a word, and it allows for a wide net of things that can be considered facts. This is problematic because the more things that are labeled fact causes more room for facts to be proved mutable.