Existence of God(s)

I’ve been busy preparing for mid-terms. I would first like to clarify the objective of this debate; I do not have to prove that God exists in order to win this debate, it is not the subject at hand, and is not the challenge in which my opponent presented to me. My opponent states: “I challenge you to deliver a logical argument as to why you believe it is not absurd to believe in something that is not demonstrable. ” I can either argue that God is demonstrable or argue that it is not absurd to believe in him even if he isn’t demonstrable. Just because my profile states that I am a Pentecostal Christian, does not mean that this will be the perspective I will be arguing from. 1. Bible Contradiction If my opponent wants to present a few specific things in the Bible that he feels are contradictory, then I welcome him to do so, but he can’t just post various links of supposed “hundreds of conrtradictions contained within the bible” and expect me to disprove every single one of them. That’s unreasonable and impossible to do given the character limit we have. Also, if you take a closer look at the links, you’ll notice that they are all on atheist based sites. This is extremely biased, and thus his so called evidence is not to be taken seriously. If I was a drug lord, and came to you asking to borrow your car, promising to return it, would you believe me? What if I presented one of my subordinates and he testified to my honesty, would you believe me then? Of course not, my subordinate is loyal to me, is a criminal, and is biased; only protecting his own interests. 2. Argument From Non-Belief I would like to begin dissecting this argument from premise 2, which states that God is omnipotent. One thing I would like to point out is that God’s omnipotence can be viewed from many different perspectives, one of them being that God is able to do anything that is in accordance with his nature. It is God’s nature to give human beings free will. If there was such an act that could be done that would undoubtedly convince every one of his existence, then he would be robbing them of their free will. He has now set things into motion that would force a person to believe in him. God would not do this, because it is not in his nature to do so. Rebuttal B. God’s existence is quite obvious to me, and I feel that God has provided me with sufficient evidence, so if I denied that God existed, then I would have an irrational/unreasonable belief as in regards to what I know. If another person claims that he has not been provided with enough evidence, and that he in fact does not believe, how am I to know whether he or she is being truthful? There would be no way for me to verify this, or understand their method of thinking, without being that person. The evidence that I have received is a personal experience and a personal experience is something that can only be known to the person who experienced it. It may be evidence for one person, but not evidence for another. From this we can see that the Argument From Non Belief may indeed be evidence to an individual who feels they have not been presented with an opportunity to know God, but this cannot be considered evidence to another person. We can see that the argument from non-belief is completely useless as a means to disprove the existence of God to another person. It is impossible for me to know whether or not a person’s claimed non-belief is actually the case. I am very busy, and do not have the time to refute his other contentions, as of right now I am late to practice. So I will conclude my rebuttals right here, but I promise to give his other contentions their due attention, in my next round. I extend my apologies for the inconvenience.