You are confusing cause and consequence.

I can settle our debate rather simply though. And coincidently, your response will either affirm or deny my axiom: “The bible is not evidence of God's existence.” (Logical Form)

You believe the bible is evidence of God’s existence; so then, who or what is the cause of your belief in God’s existence?

Let’s settle this question before we address the other questions.

The bible cannot be evidence of God's existence

what would be according to you? I don’t deny the existence of God! (I’ll answer your question if it becomes necessary.)

And help me with this, let's say I hear an audible voice from above me, it addresses me by name, tells me what I was doing prior, blinds me and knocks me to the ground. Would it be reasonable for me at this point to consider this evidence of God's existence?

The apostle Paul never used his experience of God as an argument for God’s existence. However, Paul (Saul at the time) did use his experience (the road to Damascus) as a testimony of how he had persecuted the disciples of the Lord, contrary to the will of God. The scriptures do not support an assertion that Paul attempted to prove the existence of God; and as far as Paul’s belief in God’s existence, he believed well before his conversion.

So if a phenomenon bears the marks of the divine, would it be reasonable to consider this evidence of God's existence? The belief in God’s existence is rooted within man’s disposition, belief is not a consequence of a single experience. Consider Moses as an example. Moses must necessarily believe that God exists prior to the knowledge that God’s existence can be manifested by a burning bush. Must I present an argument to prove my conclusion?

Finally, a conclusion without supporting premises is not an argument, it's an assertion. So if you would, please give some supporting premises in order that I might have reason to believe the following assertion of yours, because without reasons I have no reason to believe you.

You assert: The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less.

What say you ?

It is called an Axiom.

Axiom: a statement that needs no proof because its truth is obvious.

I recommend that you seriously consider that axiom before you attempt a denial of the axiom

The first part doesn't make much sense to me. You say you are not trying to undermine my faith, yet what exactly are you trying to do by proving my arguments are weak?

Explanation:

I am not attempting to undermine your faith, but rather put a rock foundation in lieu of the sand under your faith. Or, more specifically, inform you that there is a better foundation for your faith! Don’t take offence, for none offence is intended.

It is inspired by God. That is, God gave man the information, and they wrote it in their own certain perspective. To say that it is man's god is untrue, the Biblical God is supernatural. Man did not invent God. He has always existed.

God commanded Moses and the prophets to write these words…. Much of what you call scripture is the consequence of God’s command to write; you can say it is the fruit of obedience free from inspiration. It appears that the Almighty doesn’t rely upon inspiration. ( I am fully aware of the verse in the New Testament that reads: All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is….)

To say that it is man's god is untrue,

That is false, for it is written: ‘I am the Lord thy God,….—Exodus The Lord is declaring himself the God of some men, Israelites.

the Biblical God is supernatural

We are only cognizant of God’s existence by natural means, and therefore we are unaware of the supernatural qualities that lie beyond our scope of natural understanding. As it is written: God is spirit, and they who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and truth…--Jesus

Jesus is not asserting that we have a supernatural ability to worship a supernatural God; he is affirming that we have the natural ability to worship a spirit for the spirit is natural.

Man did not invent God. He has always existed.

Certainly, I have not indicated otherwise!

Whether or not you have that faith is dependent on the individual. You can either choose to believe or not. You have free will.

Completely false!

What you are asserting lies outside the scope of this debate. Would you care to discuss those matters independently of the current debate?

Oops, I forgot!

I see your point about the Bible. That does not mean though that the Bible does not provide arguments for the existence of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 states that God has "set eternity in the hearts of men." Hebrews 11:6 says that we have to accept that God exists by faith. It makes an argument in Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-22 that the vastness of the universe, the beauty of a sunset, etc. points to God.

What you are submitting for evidence is not evidence for your position. The Bible is speaking of evidence that is not biblical. The Bible is attesting to evidence of God’s existence by pointing to things that are not written. Your Faith is an evidence of God’s existence, the bible speaks of your faith, but the bible itself is nothing more or less than a written word about your faith.

Consider the following:

In Genesis 1:1 it is written: God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Now, which is evidence of God’s creations: the Bible, or the creations themselves? The bible is speaking the truth, but the truth it speaks of is known apart from the Bible itself. You must first believe that God created heaven and Earth before you can accept that the words of Bible are not false.

Did I satisfactorily clarify my viewpoint?

Format fixed!

First, I am not attempting to undermine your faith, I am attempting to expose the weaknesses of your arguments which you assert justify your faith. Let’s address these issues singularly.

#1 The Bible is considered as the written word of God, so how could it not be evidence for his existence?

The bible is not writ by God, it is writ by man. We look at and read the Bible and draw the inference that it is written by man. We also can validly infer that the Bible is a written work of man about man’s God. But, we cannot validly infer that the Bible itself is an evidence of God’s existence. Now, here is why: Man must be aware of the existence of God prior to a written record about God.

Allow me to further explain.

The Bible cannot prove the existence of God. In fact the Bible is written by men, to men, who already acknowledge the existence of God. This is an axiom of the Bible. The Bible is thus a consequence of man’s acknowledgement of God’s existence. So, the Bible is not an argument for or against God’s existence but is rather a written record that contains man’s testimony of man’s understanding of God, simplified. Moreover, the Bible is written for believers, it is not writ for non-believers. Our belief in the existence of God always precedes the Bible itself or else the Bible is the Author of our Faith instead of God or His only begotten Son.

Ask yourself one simple question: If Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses believed in God before the Bible existed, why do I think the Bible must prove the existence of God?

Now, let’s compare what I’ve stated to the scriptures.

Abraham believed God; did Abraham justify himself by the scriptures? No.

Moses was the servant of God; did Moses search the scriptures? No, for there were no scriptures.

Finally, the Bible is for they who believe, it is not an argument for they who believe not. A man can take consolation by the contents of Bible, but the only reason a man can do such is because a man’s Faith is not of the Bible but of God.

Conclusion: The belief that God exists precedes both the relevancy and irrelevancy of the Bible; the Bible cannot be the cause of belief or disbelief.

Any questions before we move to the next issue?

"Stop insulting others" is damn good advice for you to heed yourself.

No shit Sherlock!

My rebuttal is not predicated upon what you did not state, my rebuttal is a valid response to what you did affirm. I will not rebutt what you do not affirm or deny, I will only challenge that which you assert.

I know you are aware of the fact that your rebuttal is a red-herring. (previous testing has proven this to me)

The bible cannot be evidence of God's existence. For the evidence of God's existence precedes and supersedes the words of the bible. The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less.

Both you and your opponents irrationally think that the bible and its commentators are, in actuality, evidences of God's existence and non-existence, both camps argue from the absurd!

What say you?

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has not burdened you with the responsibility of proving His existence. Nor has He burdened any man with such a task.

Why do you labor as though you are doing God a favor by attempting to prove his existence?

God has no apologist nor body of apologists!