The God of the Bible Exist

Pro opens this debate with the bold and succinct statement: "The God of the Bible Exist". There are two ways to validate this statement. Either, show me God, or prove the authenticity of the Bible. The onus is not on Con to instruct Pro in how to achieve a proof of God. As I'm certain Pro is unable to show me God. The onus is solely on them to prove the authenticity of the bible. To do this they must prove that the basis of biblical information is fact and not myth. Now lets respond to some of the issues Pro raises in their third round treatise. Job 38:16. A hundred different people could interpret Job 38. In a hundred different ways. Pro chooses one interpretation, that suits their argument. I will now proffer my own construct based on Job 38:16. Job 38:16. Theorises on the reasons for the marked differences between seawater and the freshwater of the land. And concludes that the water of the sea must emanate from springs hidden in the depths of the oceans. Subsequent discoveries of geothermal vents in the ocean floor, does not validate either theory. Jesus Christ. The biblical tale of Jesus Christ, post dates the supposed inception of biblical information by many thousands of years. I therefore, do not consider it relevant to this particular debate. The supernatural. If you claim God is supernatural and not real and natural. Then you completely discredit the whole theory of God the creator. As you are now proposing the magical theory of something from nothing. Authenticity. Pro cites evolutionism rather than creationism. Pro also makes reference to dinosaurs. If you accept the theory of evolution and the existence of dinosaurs, you once again discredit the theory of God the creator. As the process of evolution and the existence of dinosaurs, predate the notion of God by millions of years. Do I need my earliest human ancestors as proof of my existence? Of course not. I am proof of my existence. Do you need a copy of the first Bible to prove that your copy is real? Of course not. You can see it and you can feel it. But. If you proclaim the existence of a God, based solely on the information written in your Bible. You have to be able to prove that the origins of this information are factual and not mythical. Israel. In order to give credence to the uniqueness of Israel. You must first prove the existence of God. Polycarp's Bible. One does not doubt the similarity of ancient and modern texts. But this still does not validate the factuality of the original information, on which either text was based. The Levites. Maybe the Levites were extremely diligent when copying texts. But their system would only work when copying verbatim. This does not preclude the likelihood of texts being corrupted, in translation. Especially when there are very marked differences between languages and alphabets. The ability to memorise text. The savant ability of memorising and reciting information. Is well documented but uncommon. Archaeology and Greek manuscripts. There is no reason why places and events referred to in the bible, should not be based on actualities. And once again I stress that, there is no reason to doubt similarities between ancient and modern texts. In conclusion. Con asks Pro. To prove that the Bible, on which they base their proclamation of the existence of god, is factual and not mythical. Pro has failed to do this and of course it is impossible to do this. The God of the Bible exists? Maybe he does. I cannot prove he doesn't. But Pro most certainly cannot prove he does.