The Bible is not evidence for God

" I am saying it is definitely evidence of the character named God because anyone can easily see a character by that name is in the stories. I am not claiming the character is real." The character in the Bible is not named God. I already explained that. Please stick to the debate. I don't care if you can prove that the book is real. "You did not specify which God you were talking about or whether you were talking about a mythical God or a real God." I absolutely did. In the debate title and in round one. There is only one god in the bible. And there is no difference between a mythical god and a "real" god. None have been proven. All are mythology by definition. "If the bible is not evidence of the characters it contains what in your opinion would be better evidence of stories about a mythical God ?" Real evidence. Like I pointed out in round one, about the dragon story. I would have to prove that the dragon is real. Not just by going on and on about stories that are not true. "I used the example of santa to explain that God exists as a myth in stories in the same way Santa exists as a myth in stories . It is an existing concept regardless of whether the character is real or not. You do not need to prove that a mythical character exists in reality for people to believe in the concept. Gullible people simply believe what they are told. For example, the whole world believes in Santa in a way because people dress up like Santa and keep the myth of Santa going through the generations. They might not believe the character is real but they still believe in the concept. If they did not, they would not pretend to be Santa." "No I am not saying a story about a mythical dragon proves the dragon is real. I am saying the story proves the story is real. A book proves the book is real. Written words prove the written words are real. The existence of a story proves a story exists. The story does not need to be true in order to exist. Myths obviously exist. That does not make the characters in the myths real and does not mean they come alive in reality. All it means is that they exist in fantasy land. If you tell me a good story it is proof that you have a great imagination and can tell a good story. The characters in the story exist in your imagination. If they don't exist there where did you find them?" I agree to a large extent. But that's not the topic of the debate. There are people in the world who believe that the Bible is true in the real world. I was looking for one of those people to debate me. If you are not one of those people, I really don't know why you picked this debate (I don't want to know). "You presume I am talking about "my" God. What makes you think the bible character is my God?" Because you decided to debate me in a debate which is clearly not for you. Of course I thought that you believed the god of the bible! "What Columbus used to find the "new world" is irrelevant to the discoveries he made. If an observer described his ship or vehicle as "a magic dolphin" because that's what it looked like to them and it was the best way they could describe it, does that mean Columbus discovered nothing at all because the described vehicle is not perceived to exist in reality?" I said that he literally rode on a dolphin, as in a metaphor, not a simily. This comes down to historical accuracy. We know that he did ride on a dolphin. So whoever says so is wrong. Plain and simple. " Do you also concede that the bible is evidence of what existed in the writers minds at the time of writing?" Not exactly. They really believed it. But that is NOT the point of the debate. "Why do you insist that anyone needs to prove the accuracy of a myth when you know that no myth is an accurate historical fact in the first place?" Because other people think that it is. " You are trying to get someone to prove a mythical character is real." I would love them to. That was the point of the debate. I know fact from fiction by the way. "Why do I need to prove the bible is historically accurate?" Because you agreed to be challenged in this debate, Sir. You clearly did not understand the concept of this debate. It seems to me that we agree on just about everything. So why did you want to debate me?