The biblical God exists

Post 2  (P2)
 18.   Intro for round 2: Given my opponent forfeited round 1, I don’t have the burden, nor the luxury of response to counter anything potentially, and since he has last licks, I won’t be able to counter that either, so we must keep that in mind. However, in re: to elaborating or adding, or summing up to my argument given the character limit disallowed me to develop some of my 17 points on Post 1 (P1) or add some more I shall take advantage. To start in summary, given there is an adequate standard (AS), timeless, universal, unchanging standard of truth, which makes objective truth and true knowledge possible, but there is only an AS on monotheism, particularly biblical monotheism since the Biblical God has all the 10 essential characteristics to be an AS, as previously mentioned (P1-1, P1-2), then we have ontological justification for the preconditions of intelligibility being rooted in God’s nature and creation, thus given justification for the principles we base our knowledge on (reason, memory, senses) (P1-3, P1-4), which allows them to potentially be reliable for us to learn truth with proper study, application or experience, and can use those faculties with God’s Holy Spirit (HS) to confirm evidence for biblical inspiration, inerrancy and preservation (P1-6). Hence, we find confirmation that the Bible is from God, hence the Biblical God exists.  As an AS, being non-contingent the Bible being from God would also be non-contingent, thus pointing to itself, or using it as an evidence of authoritative truth even to an unbeliever wouldn’t be begging the question or a vicious circle, but a necessary pure circle of a terminate point to eliminate the infinite regress contradiction (P1-5).
19.   Additional point on the Bible:   Bible has errors, contradictions, scientific fallacies, legends, myths and objections:  Apologetics studies have answered every so-called error posited. Hence, all we need is a possible realistic solution to so-called errors or contradictions to cancel the objection and to show the law of non-contradiction has not been violated.  Further, in re: to science, legends, myths, the testimony for miracles in NT (New Testament) is based on writers closer in time to the alleged events than any other ancient history, so the legend, myth hypothesis couldn’t stand up w/o special pleading.  Additionally, the Bible does have scientific integrity like suspension of earth in space, 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, causality principle, unseen entities, spherical planet, hydraulic cycles, most comprehensive explanation of current geological features, innumerable stars, etc. Also, such objections are based on the miracles recorded in the NT, but it is begging the question to write off the biblical writings because they mention many miracles, since the question is this a book that is true, testifying to real miracles that come from God, which one would be presuming isn’t because of the mention of miracles, thus begging the question. We must judge miracles on the basis of history, which is determined by reliable eyewitnesses recording and writing them within a reasonable timeframe that is within the confines of the potential historical context of such miracles. The NT has this, as the NT writers are well within the lifetime to be potential eyewitnesses or having heard their testimony from.   Also, the numerous documents or sources for them are embarrassingly rich compared to all other ancient documents, passing the bibliopolical test within flying colors.  The idea that these miracles are legends at times prior to science is begging the question.  Biblical miracles were to confirm revelation during ancient Israel’s time for ancient Israel, thus since we are no longer in their dispensation, but the churches’ and the bible is complete so God is no longer using those signs and wonder miracles in our day, which has nothing to do with science disproving miracles unless we beg the question, because the miracles of the bible are not God explaining natural events like lightning by supernatural agency of gods; that a strawman based on polytheism deities.  Natural phenomena are determined by God’s manner of upholding our universe (Hebrews 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17), so no supernatural phenomena is necessary.  The miracles of scripture were for limited people within limited contexts, so wouldn’t be experienced and witnessed by most people and were done for the testimony of those involved, so they would record such, so we can have testimony to God’s interactions and dealings with them in the past.  Jesus walked on water but was only seen by some of the apostles, not the whole world.  Jesus rose from the grave, but the risen Jesus was seen by select apostles and disciples chosen by God, so they could start the witnessing chain(Acts 10:41); that miracle was never intended to prove to the world Jesus was God. But these are the fallacious presumptions bible critics presuppose for the purpose of miracles, thus argue a strawman.  We could only learn of miracles if they are no longer happening in that sense by history, which is determined by just a few reliable eyewitnesses, which we have in the NT.  Also, secular views of origins isn’t operational empirical science based on observation, experimentation, but conjecture and faulty reasoning, and misinformation  (1 Timothy 6:20); special creation is the best explanation (Genesis 1) scientifically, philosophically, theologically and biblically. For example, re: the fossil record, the predictions are more in line with the creation WV with stasis and disjunction or gaps.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDSHXuX__aPT292OBWT3OHxnF8py0acL/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=112188272686227754199&rtpof=true&sd=true
20.   The NT is based upon ancient mythology objection:    There was no reason for the early disciples to contradict their traditional religion, since their religion was considered the truth and as far as we can tell from the documents these early Jewish Christians accepted and used the OT scriptures and believed in whole-heartedly in the monotheistic God Yahweh.  So there is no crisis of faith that could have spurned the movement. They had no motivation to change or convert to some pagan idea, that God had a Son, and God was a man, which isn’t truly pagan, but in many Jews’ eyes it is.  That contradicts what most Jews would think and is a reason they crucified Jesus in the first place, even as Caiaphas the high priest calls Jesus’s statement blasphemy, a man claiming to be God (Matthew 26:65).  Jews abhorred pagan ideas; they thought they were lost, so they are not going to borrow pagan myths, ideas, customs to create an alternative religion. They had to truly believe Jesus was God and rose again for them to go forward and revisit their views about the messiah.  The Jewish original messiah concept didn’t spark a belief in the resurrection; the resurrection sparked a new view of the messiah.  Plus, since pagan ideas were so detested, and early Jewish leadership considered the Jesus movement just that, then considering it blasphemy, it would put Jewish Christians at odds with the leadership and customs, which now would seriously threaten their physical safety and social acceptance.  Hence, the early Jewish Christians would heap persecution for their beliefs and all the documents support they did, which means, the idea they made this up would be inconceivable. They genuinely had to believe these things reported in the NT, not exaggerated, fictionalized from ancient myths.  Being ostracized put out of the synagogue, persecuted, and suffer and even die was not a list of perks to sign up for a new invented religion, especially based on the detested pagan ideologies contrary to their culture, which would do nothing to win over converts of those in the mindset of Judaism, which all but falsifies conspiracy and myth origin theory. Based upon this one of the minimal facts that all scholars concede is that the origins of Christianity had emanated from a sincere belief that Jesus rose from the grave.   The claim that much of Jesus’s alleged life was simply copied from myth/folklore. The idea that is popular on the internet and gullible people claim is the idea that the Jesus resurrection idea was a copied myth.  We touched on the rebuttal of this theory earlier.  The link on point 6 is especially damaging to this theory, which shows Christianity was initially and primarily a Jewish movement, but later was advanced to gentiles, thus an appeal to pagan literature to explain its uprising would be wholly unsound.  However, many of these myths postdate Christianity, so can’t be valid in terms of an explanation.  Only Osiris is prior, but Osiris is never bodily resurrected; he is resurrected to an underworld, so they are not that similar to imply borrowing or plagiarizing.  But either way, similarities don’t necessarily mean causal connections for one thing being the impetus for the other, unless you have extensive documental evidence, which there is none on that matter except the NT account and the Osiris account, no other documents link them.  So, this idea is more unsupported fancy.  Also, why would these Christens, who were Jews steal and plagiarize pagan ideas from pagans, who they thought were lost and deceived in the first place? They would have gone to Jewish customs and scriptures, not the pagans. Also, the similarity idea is spurious and the similarities are vague and cherry picked.  There was an actual story that predated the historical Titanic sinking, but there were many similarities that made the fictional predated story seem as if it was talking about the actual Titanic, that you would think it prophesied of it or it post-dated it.  Do we now suggest that the Titanic sinking was a myth that was copied from this story? Of course, not we recognize similarities can be cherry picked, while key differences are ignored.  There is no connection between these myths and Christ. In fact, the School of Religion, a prominent German school, harped on these similarities in an attempt to divorce Jesus from his Jewishness; they thus ransacked pagan literature looking for similarities.  They did this because as Germans they were anti-Semitic wanting Jesus not to be a Jewish idea. This School of Religion fell in disrepute due to a lack of following because scholars realized the spurious nature of their Jesus/ancient myth connections.  Virtually all NT historical scholars reject this hypothesis.  But unfortunately, it is still broadcasted by unlearned critics.
21.  Objection: There are so many other gods and religions, how do you know yours is correct?
-The question, how do you know, is loaded, since it presumes knowledge in the first place, which can only exist on the biblical WV (worldview) with the only potential AS (Adequate standard) ( P-1, P-2, P-3). demonstrates.  The fact we can know anything at all is thus the precedent that the biblical WV is correct over those other counterfeits, which we would expect in a world of true good and evil and freewill.  Alternative options must exist for true freewill towards evil to be actualized, so rather than variants being a competitor to the biblical WV, they are complementary and necessary to it.  However, on polytheism most of these other gods exist, but polytheism doesn’t provide an AS, so all those gods can’t be it, thus not the true God. Also, the fact that there are variants or other options does not preclude the means of there being a true one or us being able to come to it on other disciplines or subjects, so why use special pleading here and claim it will preclude it here on religious matters?  Also, if God exists, then it guarantees there is a means to come to truth by him, since God by default is good, thus faithful, which means there must be a Word from him, since a faithful, good being would want us to come to truth, thus make a means to it, which he has revealed himself to us, and is available for all who want the true God on his terms via creation/nature, the HS, the Word, conscience, and the church of God, the means God reveals truth to those who seek him.  “ And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13). “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32, Jesus).
22.   God-of-the-Gaps objection: Gaps of knowledge imply true knowledge is possible in the first place.  But that only exists on the biblical WV (see P1-3).  Usually secular naturalists make this objection, but in so doing also assume natural explanations would account for reality, but the so-called gaps can’t be explained on naturalism/materialism, but naturalists insist there can and will be a natural explanation in time, thus adhere to the natural-law of the gap’s fallacy, suggesting science will eventually fill the gaps, thus have the same problems.  However, inference to the best explanation is an adequate means to come to the truth. You don’t need certainty, just the most probable explanation for our universe and all of its contents because it does demand an explanation, so the best one would suffice. The best one being the most comprehensive explanation to address the sum of reality we experience, but as such the biblical God provides that, able to explain physical and nonphysical realities, including biological information, finetuning, aesthetic beauty, objective truth and morals, laws, laws of logic, math, nature, uniformity of nature, reliability of senses, memory, independence/freewill, ultimate meaning/purpose order, design, conscious existence, rationality, reasoning, symbiotic relationships, irreducible complexity, complexities, the existence of moral and natural evils, life, complex life, death, pain, suffering, happiness, etc. The biblical God explains all of this, giving precedence for all of it being rooted in God’s nature or creation, freewill. Secularism and pseudo-religious WV’s provide little to no satisfactory answers.  Additionally, the immaterial evidence in the form of arguments using reason (cosmological, epistemological, teleological, moral, etc.) are pro-positive arguments for the biblical God’s existence, hence are not God-of-the-Gaps at all.
23.   Ontology:  Justification of existence, objective morals, ultimate meaning, preconditions of intelligibility, etc. can only be explained in light of God.  We must ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?  The 1st law of thermodynamics says matter/energy don’t create or destroy themselves, only change forms, so why is it here at all?  Secularism presupposes nature, matter, energy came from nothing, but a true nothing would not be a cause for anything, since where did nothing come from since there was nothing, or go to, since there was nowhere to go and since there was nothing to come from or go to in the first place, then that leaves us with nothing.  So, something or someone had to always be here with all the sufficient qualities to account for everything and one in our universe or any other potential reality that could exist in keeping with causality principle.  But secularism suggests matter/energy, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics or entropy makes that impossible for an evolution to progress to all these undo effects.  A-rational, blind, random, amoral, indifferent, non-conscious, impersonal, process to produce rational, reasonable, orderly, lawlike, finetuned things/systems, moral, conscious, personal things or beings violates causality principle, the basis on which all science exists.  So why does our universe have such qualities existing somewhere inside of it at all?  Why something of these qualities rather than nothing?  Ontology is the study of nature of being or existence, so what justification on secularism produces such effects as existence, being in the first place, let alone existence, being with all the previous criteria?  If you say evolution, evolution is a random process of random change, and so far as we have observed random processes have never produced something from a true nothing, or explosions into people with such qualities, or information, directly or overtime, etc. So, there is no empirical data that evolution is an answer at all, quite the contrary we know that randomness leads to the opposite from our experiences, contradicting the narrative of evolutionary advocates (1 Timothy 6:20). 
24.  Multiverse objection: Some say randomness could traverse odds to produce effects we see in our universe by increasing the likelihood if there are infinite universes, or many of them prior to eventually getting all outcomes to realize.  However, this is a rescuing device to explain away a very real problem for secularism produced by causality and finetuning (P1-12).  However, there is no empirical data for a multiverse, so can’t realistically be posited as a solution to the probability problems finetuning presents.  Some would say God isn’t empirical either, but the difference is it is on secularism in which secularists seek explanations outside of supernatural ones, or God to explain current realities, thus rely on naturalism and materialism, while supernatural, God hypotheses don’t; hence, nobody on theism is claiming that God and his actions of creation need to be empirical; they are supernatural acts of the past by an immaterial being, thus not subject to empiricism; while natural explanations for what they are would require empirical evidence to verify them as potential realistic candidates to explain the effects of our universe, but given that burden of proof is upon naturalism and materialism, they would require to come up with satisfactory explanations to explain our universe with all of its effects, including finetuning, as well as empirical data suggesting there are truly other universes (multiverse) existing finite or infinitely,  but that is precisely what secularists have failed to do, come up with satisfactory explanations nor empirical data for such ad hoc conjecture,  which makes such speculation frivolous for fruitful explanations to explain effects, including finetuning.  However, even a MV would require a beginning given the nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the nature of energy, the Bourd-Guth-Velenkin  (BGV) model as described earlier, given the energy would be used up on any cyclative models, which makes there have to be a low finite number of any potential universes to exist to around 10, which reduces the odds of getting the effects and finetuning of the universe remotely, Simply put, a multiverse doesn’t avert the need for a true beginning, it merely pushes it back, and not far enough, but in so doing, the odds problem is still there, still having odds astronomical to realistically consider that to be the solution of the problem.  Plus, even if there were infinite universes, it wouldn’t solve finetuning anyhow since the finetuning is specifically in our universe, thus the odds of getting it in our universe still hold; for whatever happened in other alleged universes would be immaterial to the argument.   Plus, any universe, let alone more than one coming from random processes from nothing is impossible anyhow, so the suggestion of multiverse is a red herring dodgeball trick to fruitlessly avoid the God hypothesis for finetuning.
25.   Adding unto P1-16.  Other arguments and knowing God by his effects: There are many other good philosophical arguments or variations of these in apologetics that make the biblical God the best inference to explain our reality and you don’t need certainty only probability with these arguments to come to a true good conclusion; however, certainty is possible as well. We use immaterial measures for immaterial essences, thus reasoned arguments of this nature are acceptable rather than direct scientific sensory data (see P1-9-11). The biblical God does exist and it reasonable if such a God exists he would provide reasonable evidence that doesn’t overshadow freewill desires to the contrary, but with such evidence, and a seeking heart we could come to the truth most probably, even certainly.  In a world of true moral good and evil and freewill we would expect for the true God to leave the realistic potential to know him and distinguish him, his Word from counterfeits which would exist in a world where true evil and freewill exists.  We know God by the effects we experience, observe in our world, including objective morality upon our conscience. Even as we know an archeological find resulted from an intelligent agent even though we witnessed none of its production by this anonymous designer of the past.  Same holds true of the grand-designer God,…
26.   Adding to the Teleological Biological Information Argument (P1-13).  “Natural Selection doesn’t help to solve the combinatorial inflation problems of an ever-growing finetuned complex chain, which is randomly wrought,” Selection can only preserve potentially advantageous functions and structures that random mutations supposedly wrought, thus is of no use in overcoming odds to do so. Certainly a 13 plus billion years universe, let alone the smaller eras these things evidently came to be, could not solve the combinatorial search problem to get the finetuned sequences to produce biological information. However, even if we gave it infinite time, you still wouldn’t get biological information since causality will never allow randomness to produce effects so different from the suggested causes for them, especially given life’s symbiotic relationships and irreducibly complex structures and epigenetic features, which have little to do with Selection and random mutations on the primary axiom, but preexisting advanced information that must be there to determine context and direction of other life-bearing molecules, including DNA, RNA and enzymes.  Thus, biological information can’t be explained by randomness, nor by physical necessity since arrangement of nucleotides along the DNA spine is not to do with chemistry, thus has no foreordained arrangement; any specified sequence of nucleotides is possible, and chemistry doesn’t compel which letters go where. If not random, not deterministic by chemistry, then the only alternative is design, which always means a designer, but humans nor animals didn’t do it, and neither is there evidence that aliens did or could do it, so it must be God, but why the biblical God? The design requires a mind of such magnitude, it very well points to omniscience, conscious existence, a personal being.  Given the universality of DNA and other macromolecules, there is a universality of design, suggesting a singular, not multiple source, hence we are dealing with monotheism.  On deism God doesn’t interfere, but given the sophistication of the design, there had to be supernatural causation, a miracle to explain it, thus deism is disqualified, and pantheism won’t distinguish biological information within organic life forms from inorganic elements, given nature is the divine, thus no reason for variety of this massive sort and class level distinctions within the universe, despite pantheists rants about equality of all living things.  But why the biblical God over other monotheistic deities are that other ones that mix with deism, pantheism, polytheism and secularism have disqualified themselves given the impossibilities of the ramifications of those worldviews to explain such phenomena, leaving only Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all of which depend on the Bible in some way.   Further, the nature of the care that went into such design emphasizes a caring, loving powerful wise good God. Yet Christianity (1 John 3:16) has the supreme example of love in God’s planned design for salvation for people by the sacrifice of himself, via his Son’s atonement (Romans 5:8-11), thus is in harmony with this type of ingenuity, care, love as in evidence by the effect of biological design. 
27. Salvation continued:   (P1-17).  Given we all have an objective moral sense hardwired into our conscience, so we seek justice or restitution for moral violations, we must reckon with the moral law. Given we ourselves recognize we individually and collectively have violated those moral principles at times, we need to ask why.  Why do we have this moral-sense; if by evolution, then this 3rd option to deliberated between rash instinct and pious notions would delay responses and be extremely detrimental for an evolving species in the wild, thus natural selection could not preserve a moral sense, which means morality is not the result of evolution, but truly transcendent of biological instincts toward gratification (an evolutionary necessity).  Hence, as transcendent, dealing with persons, its source must be transcendent within a person, which is the AS, in the biblical God (P1-14). Hence, the insistence on justice universally and timelessly within humans also has a transcendent basis, rooted in God, thus implying our broken moral laws must be divinely adjudicated in accordance with transcendent justice.  Given the fact that we experience bad things, suffering, pain, death and by harsh means, we must reckon that there is a problem to warrant such conditions.  Given God is an AS, one of the qualities being completely moral, righteous, infallible (P1-14), then these bad outcomes can’t be conducive to his original creation.  Given there is a true good and evil and people capable of both, yet God can’t be responsible for our evil choices, freewill must be real. Therefore, freewill is the best answer to the problem of man’s inclinations to evil or immorality. Given God’s righteous justice, we now have the reason for bad things in the world, including death. This means death and all of its trimmings are a result of God’s justice against man’s freewill choices toward evil or true moral wrong.  Given we are already experiencing consequences of God’s justice, it stands to reason that God will judge humanity for our sins, thus a future afterlife judgement is not only plausible but almost certain.  Given God is perfectly just and moral, then any violation would constitute divine eternal justice. Of course, trying to do better or adopting a religion to do so would not change the fact we have morally violated many principles already and will probably continue to do in many respects, thus doesn’t eliminate the need for justice against these evils.  The biblical WV provides the only possible adequate remedy since God sent his Son to live as a human a perfectly sinless life, so he could take on our sins, to bear the full eternally divine justice for them in our place to satisfy God’s justice against all evil/sin, which then allows for us to have an eternal relationship in ongoing fellowship with God for eternity (eternal life). However, it makes sense that just as we have freewill to violate God’s laws in the first place, we also would have it to accept or reject God’s solution, so as such an affirmative decision towards it in our hearts and heads is an act of faith that becomes the means to one’s personal salvation.  If we make the affirmative decision to receive Christ by faith, God judicially clears us based on Calvary’s merits, and also has permission to transform us inwardly via providing for us the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, which is a token of real conversion/salvation which produced new desires to know the Lord, having relationship with him via his Word,  the very purpose God created us for in the first place, which now validates ultimate meaning/purpose for our existence, something secular WV’s and even pseudo-religious WV’s can’t do.  However, all that to say this, the Biblical WV has the proper answer to our moral dilemma, and as such solidifies its status as a genuine, non-counterfeit preserved, inerrant Word of God, thus guaranteeing the Biblical God’s existence.   If you haven’t recognized your sin is leading you to hell, and you need to trust God’s Son in your heart as your Savior and Lord based on his finished work on the cross, then you can by calling on the Lord in true heart-felt faith and genuine repentance.  “Justice and Judgement are the habitation of thy throne.” “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Keep in mind, the topic is not

The topic is

Without further clarifications on explicitly what "biblical God" is, it would be obvious to interpret the term literally. We therefore, concerns the proof(and the disproof of, therefore) a deity that is exactly as the Bible describes it as, due to that any God other than that would be not biblical anymore. We are not supposed here to prove the existence of Zeus, Juno, or the Qur'an God. We are supposed to prove exactly the God described by the books of the Bible.

If A is a tangible concept and we define B as something that is both A and not A, B cannot practically exist because two conditions that defines something as B makes the set for existing instances of B a null set. Basically, ( A ⋂ A' ) = {∅}.

Well, there is the problem. The bible describes the Biblical God as some entity that is both seen and unseen.

The bible, here, describes God as some entity that cannot be seen.

The same as above.

"Speaking face to face" implies that God can be seen, as described here.

This verse implies that God can appear to a person.

That is all.

Post 3: P3
In a previous debate my opponent went after form mostly, he hints at this again when he says, //Keep in mind, the topic is not
It would be logical for there to be a supernatural universal creator.//  
It seems to be my opponent is implying he is not opposed to the fact that logic points to a God, who is the Creator of all things.  Hence, he by way of implication has admitted that point.  What my opponent hasn’t conceded, and even denied, is that it is the biblical God. ///We are supposed to prove exactly the God described by the books of the Bible…Therefore, even if there is a God, it is not Biblical: As a Biblical God's existence is inherently contradictory and thus cannot actually exist.///. However, the main point of my 60,000 characters, in comparison to my opponent’s 2200 characters with Bible references, 1500 w/o them and focuses only 1 tangible objection to the biblical God existing, which is a so-called contradiction of description of the Biblical God by hinging on description of God’s unseen status, to God’s unseen status.  After that 1 objection, makes his conclusion, saying, ///That is all/// and given the brevity of his complaint to supposedly disprove the biblical God, the “That is all” seem appropriate because my opponent has given hardly anything at all to disqualify the 60,000 characters I already used to argue logically not just that a general God exists, but the Biblical God himself, which my opponent didn’t even try to refute any of those 60,000 characters within my first 2 posts; in fact, he forfeited round 1 with nothing at all, which leads one to believe that there is little to no substance my opponent has, using  “form/conventions” or a “conjectural bias” w/o evidence that no particular God could be proven. However, he hasn’t actually given any logical evidence that no particular God can be proven.  My opponent then would seem to advocate some deist position, but I spent some considerable time focusing on 4 WV(worldviews) (secularism, deism, pantheism, polytheism),with all their philosophies, ideologies and religions) that can’t be logically true and are irrational because they don’t provide for us an Adequate Standard (AS), a timeless, universal, unchanging standard of truth with all the 10 essential qualities needed to be an AS as on post points P1-1, P1-2, thus can’t provide for objective truth and real knowledge, nor provide a proper foundation for all the preconditions of intelligibility such as laws of logic, laws of math, laws of nature, laws of morality, uniformity of nature, reliability of senses, memory, etc. (P1-3).  Hence, my opponent uses logic such as the law of non-contradiction on 1 point to allegedly disprove the biblical God, //The Bible defines God as an entity that both can and cannot be seen, which is contradictory. However, aside from the biblical WV rooted in the biblical God, there is no justification for laws at all, let alone laws of logic, given the source of logic must be an AS, which only exists within the biblical WV in the biblical God.(P1-3, P1-4), The qualities of logic are as follows: non-contingent (not dependent on anything or one outside for its existence or qualities),  immaterial, abstract, conceptual  (mind originated, thus personal), universal, immutable (unchanging) etc. Causality demonstrates that such effects as aforementioned in the existence of logic, that the cause to produce such effects must have capability to produce such, thus the source couldn’t be so different as to not have the potential to produce the effects in question, but as such then the soure of logic must be a universal or omnipresent, non-contingent, unchanging immaterial personal mind, but then that is an AS, hence that is the biblical God, for no other god when we practically analyze other so-called gods or WV’s apart from monotheism (pantheism, polytheism, deism, secularism) can provide an AS (P1-1, P1-2).  For example, On polytheism, the gods are finite, thus not universal, thus not in keeping to be a source for logic’s universality, also, they are contingent in many ways, including their coming into being, hence don’t have the non-contingent quality to explain logic’s non-contingence, thus can’t account for laws of logic ontologically speaking. Secularism reduces everything to matter, energy, which of course is contingent, temporary, finite, so in no way accounts for logic, especially since in a randomly produced universe, the effect of laws, rationality could not be explained by a cause so unlike in randomness.  And now to my opponent’s suggestion of either agnosticism or deism we take aim. //If God exists//.  For agnosticism is secularism, and secularism doesn’t have an AS, and the qualities of the universe don’t provide an adequate cause for the effects and qualities of logic. In fact, in agnosticism, one can’t know (no knowledge) is agnosticism’s theme, but such is self-refuting, because how then could you know that you couldn’t know if one can’t know to begin with?  In fact, you would have to know something to conclude you can’t know anything, which then shows the irrationality of the point of view.  In fact, my opponent is sure the biblical God doesn’t exist, // it is not Biblical:// but on agnosticism he could never know so w/o special pleading that is.  In regards to logic, if one can’t know, then how could one know logic exists and is reliable in the first place, not having a solid foundation for its causes and effects?  In fact, the basic principle of not knowing is contrary to logic because laws of logic suggest by using them they exist and are reliable, thus you could know things by using them, contrary to the theme of agnosticism.  
 
On deism, God doesn’t interfere, so there is no way we could truly know him specifically, which lends to agnosticism, with its aforementioned problems/contradictions and self-refuting claims, thus being irrational and illogical at the core.  If God doesn’t interfere and simply created the universe and leaves it all alone with no miracles, then there is no way we could know God, since we could never verify a revelation from God, having no distinct markers of God like miracles to confirm it is truly revelation from God (P1-6).  This is why deists reject the Bible. Their WV doesn’t allow for a verbal revelation from God, but how could you know anything significantly about God including his righteous morality if there is none (P1-14)? You couldn’t w/o begging the question.  In fact, some say you could learn of things about God by general revelation, from nature, creation itself, but the problem with that, is what revelation from nature gives one precedence that their interpretation of nature has justification to truly reveal anything about God in the first place? You would be begging the question because the air, wind, fire, earth, stars, sun, moon, trees, etc. don’t actually communicate those detailed messages to us, hence won’t communicate that it is an indicator to God or that we should interpret such as being indicators of God. We would then be presuming. The only way general revelation could be justified as a potential indicator to God in some way is if there is ontological justification from a very clear verbal message from God that it is just that, and that we should interpret it that way, which then demands a verbal revelation or scriptures, but not a counterfeit one, but one truly from God that we all could potentially know was from God if our freewill seeks after God’s truth (P1-6).  But we do indeed have that justification in the Bible.  “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20).  “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard” (Psalms 19:1-3).  Scripture justifies and confirms our suspicions that creation and conscience point to God’s existence, but w/o it, we would simply be begging the question in such a suggestion.  Thus deism has the right notion, we could learn of God from his creation but w./o justification since they reject clear verbal revelation (the Bible) that would give them such.  Hence, just like other false WV’s w/o an adequate standard, deism has no basis for objective truth.  Yet, in rejecting the Bible as my opponent does, //Therefore, even if there is a God, it is not Biblical: As a Biblical God's existence is inherently contradictory and thus cannot actually exist.// he has short-circuited his argument, because he has inadvertently cut down a proper foundation for laws of logic to exist and be reliable guides to truth to begin with. Yet my opponent attempts to use logic for his whole argument and in fact one can’t have an argument w/o logic. So, in using logic, he has defied his WV of secularism agnosticism or deism, and has inadvertently pointed to the reality of an AS, which is the biblical God.  So, to use such laws demands the biblical God exists, irrespective of a person’s beliefs about the Bible; for just as air must exist to speak lengthy conversations opposed to the existence of air.  In the same way you need to use logic to make claims to allegedly disprove logic, but by being forced to use that which you deny makes that which you deny transcendent to your denial, certifying the truth of it despite your errant ideas to the contrary.  Hence, like is a transcendental, which then makes it rooted in a transcendent being with the necessary qualities to explain the effects of logic, which makes monotheism a certainty. However, all forms of monotheism that mix with false WVs (secularism, deism, polytheism, pantheism) disqualify themselves to be an AS, and transcendental, which leaves 3 main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) which all rely on the Bible in some measure; however, why the full biblical WV and not Islam is because the Biblical God has all essential 10 qualities both doctrinally and applicationally to be the AS, and transcendent source for logic.  Judaism only has 8, and Islam 6 practically speaking (P1-1).  For example, in Islam, there is a doctrine called abrogation in which contradictions are permitted by Allah, hence, Allah can overall change his mind or stance on something, to totally cancel what was prior. Oral nature of it made it easy to abrogate (cancelling) since one didn’t have to cut out pages, but not recite or memorize it.  Islam contends, “Abrogation of text-not law, or law-not text.” As such, practically speaking Allah can actually change his mind, thus is subject to change in his qualities so isn’t actually immutable at all, which would mean he isn’t actually a true AS, in fact, given an AS must be self-revealing for us to be able to know objective truth, since even if the AS had all truth, it would do us no good, if that truth that he knows wasn’t revealed to us, for as such we could never know truth and would be begging the question in claiming we do.  But given there can be actual doctrinal abrogation of text/law within the Koran itself then the Koran is muting hence, making it not a reliable revelation from an AS, making Allah not self-revealing at all.  This is further enhanced that parts of the Koran advocate the Bible and other parts don’t, which has to do with abrogation, a doctrine not taught in the Bible.  But then what is the status of the Bible according to the Koran, true or untrue, no matter what we say would be a contradiction since the Bible was completed by that time so couldn’t be true, then become untrue given it has not changed.  No matter what we say, the status could change again since abrogation is possible.  So the Koran in no way eliminates the Bible from possibly being true, in fact, it often alludes to events and teachings of it from OT and NT alike, but the Bible never testifies to the Koran and always rejects its doctrines as they currently are depicted in Islam.  So while the Koran gives possibility to the Bible being true, thus grants it could be, but if the Bible  is (a possibility granted from the Koran), while the Bible never grants that the Koran could fundamentally be  true, making the Koran false, not the true revelation.  In regard to an OT only revelation, God would not be self-revealing practically speaking for the following reason. The OT ends with many prophecies that are open to various possibilities of fulfillment, and the status to these fulfillments are necessary to demonstrate major themes of the OT, hence, the OT is screaming out for further elaboration and fulfillment, but on Judaism this is disallowed, since the OT is the only revelation God will ever provide.  It is only the NT that allows fulfillment and direction for those OT ideas, prophecies, themes to be realized, showing it is truly the completion and compliment to it, even as Jesus himself taught he was a fulfillment to it messianic prophecies.  “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17).  Hence, God of the OT has an incomplete revelation, which lends us to not knowing the true measure of truth from him, leaving him as not truly having self-revealed himself so that we could truly know objective truth.  But in completing his Word with the NT, we do have major direction provided for us with its scriptures, thus do have a true self-revealing God or AS.   There is more on this distinction of these 3 religions, potentially qualifying to be a true AS. (see my link in P1-1).  Hence, it is the full biblical worldview in the biblical God that can only be a true AS, hence, the potential only source for laws of logic and other preconditions of intelligibility (P1-3). So my proof is not just for some general God to exist, but particularly the Biblical God and I would have an adequate basis for using logic as existing and being reliable in the first place to develop such arguments, since the biblical WV is the only one that provides such basis in the first place, while others simply beg the question for their ontological foundation of such; yet my opponent uses logic, a transcendental, to develop his argument but in so doing, has actually appealed to a foundation that could not possibly exist on his WV (deism, agnosticism or any other non-Biblical WV), thus attested to a transcendental that would mandate his con position wrong. 
 
///We are not supposed here to prove the existence of Zeus, Juno, or the Qur'an God. We are supposed to prove exactly the God described by the books of the Bible.///
My argument has shown the impossibility for such gods in polytheism or even Islam to be a proper AS, yet an AS is necessary for objective truth and true knowledge.  It is only the God of the Bible that is a true AS, thus it is proven/demonstrated that the Biblical God exists.
 
/// The bible describes the Biblical God as some entity that is both seen and unseen…1 Timothy 6:16
“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”///
Even in my opponent’s endeavor to describe the biblical God, he errs foundationally, even as evident by the verse he quotes. Notice his description, “as some entity,” but now notice the verse he quotes to develop his ideas with such personal pronouns, not as an entity or it at all, but as a person, “Who, whom.” Hence, he errs even in his description as an entity rather than the verse’s depiction of God as a person.  So right from the start, we see clear misrepresentation in his description, so red flags must go up for the reader, and the truth is my opponent wasn’t even aware he demonstrated that his description was foundationally a contradiction to the one in the verse he quoted.  “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). But given God’s personal, rather than entity status, could then this alleged contradiction, the only basis for his objection that the Biblical God exists, be resolved?  If so, then is there any grounds on my opponent's argument to reject the scores of characters and thorough length of my argument that the Biblical God exists? There wouldn’t be any, hence, my argument would have been left unrefuted.
 
///The Bible defines God as an entity that both can and cannot be seen, which is contradictory…Therefore, even if there is a God, it is not Biblical: As a Biblical God's existence is inherently contradictory and thus cannot actually exist.///
We have already seen that entity is incorrect, so God is personal, but as such can persons be seen and not seen? Not at the same time,  or  same manner, which would be a blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction, but yes, if the time and manner or sort are different, which wouldn’t violate the law. The law of non-contradiction, which is a law of logic, which can only exist and be reliable if there is an AS, which is the biblical God to begin with as previously developed, says that 2 opposing things cannot be true in the same sense and at the same time.   Hence, to prove a true contradiction, you would have to show that the ideas, words, events, scriptures are truly contradictory in the same sense and time; otherwise, the argument of a true contradiction wouldn’t be verified, unless one engages in a logical fallacy called begging the question.  I anticipated these types of objections and spent some time addressing alleged Bible errors and contradictions on P2-19, which my opponent did not address.  To refute a true contradiction is to present a plausible resolution by providing a time or sense distinction between the alleged contradictory notions or description of God being both seen and unseen.  Apologists have oft done this, but my opponent seems to be unaware, thus is arguing an objection that has been adequately resolved.  
 
The Resolutions: My opponent must be aware that the Biblical God is described as a trinity.  “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (1 John 5:7). The Word of course is the eternal Son of God “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1, 14).  So the Word being God, creating everything, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3), and being with God [the Father], would have existed prior to creation to create the cosmos “For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:16). At that point Christ would have been unseen to any man; for at the point humanity wasn’t created, thus Jesus hadn’t become a man, so there was no human nature to behold.  Jesus himself said, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).  So God’s Son existing eternally prior to creation would be Spirit and with no humanity to behold him, nor a human nature to condescend into, wouldn’t be physical in an earthly sense, but spiritual, so thus would be utterly unseen at that point. However, as John 1:14 reveals God’s Son, the Word, who was with God the Father eternally, who created all things (v.3), took upon human nature around 2,000 years ago.  As such after creation, during the fullness of time, or God’s planned time for the incarnation, to fulfill God’s salvation program so all of us, including my opponent would have the opportunity to be saved, as revealed by the following verse, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Galatians 4:4), the eternal Son of God became the earthly son of God with a physical nature, thus could and was seen during Jesus’s earthly ministry. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness” (John 3:11), “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord” (John 20:25).   So, God’s seen was both seen and unseen, but there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction since the time is different.  In the same way I don’t see you now, but if I met you personally, you would be unseen then seen, and if you left at that point would be unseen again, so timing matters to prove true contradictions.  However, also since God is personal, not an entity, persons can reveal themselves to us in different manners.  I reveal myself to you as a writer, apologist here, but if we got to know each other, sports person, friend, etc.  Persons have that ability because there are many caveats to our personality. We are not static one dimensional, with only 1 characteristic making up the sum of our personhood.  Would it be a contradiction if my personhood be a son and a father? Not necessarily, because I would be a son to my father and if I had kids, a father to my son, but both are different descriptions of my personhood, the very basis of my opponent’s alleged description contradiction, thus embarking on a bifurcation fallacy.  God in a certain sense describes himself as imperceptible to us, yet in other senses, visible to us. Could you see a sense where this could be true as you would see senses where descriptions of persons could be different to us as we have already seen w/o being truly contradictory? Of course you could.  In one sense God’s person is unapproachable to us, ““Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” the verse my opponent originally quoted to prove God’s unseen status. Notice the ethereal, transcendent descriptors here, “immorality, dwelling in light, no man can approach, honour, power everlasting.” These are divine transcendent qualities that no person could observe (immaterial), nor ascend to since we are finite, fallible, contingent, created, temporary, changing creatures, while God is infinite, eternal, non contingent, immutable, creator, etc. as an AS, so we can’t see God in that sense, never could and it is within that context the verse and others like it  is meant, butt this in nowise suggests that God couldn’t for salvation purposes take upon a human nature, so that his disciples could see him earthly form at that point of time.  Seeing him in that sense of the way the incarnation is described would not be contradictory to the sense of 1 Timothy 6:16,  suggests transcendent personal godly divine qualities God has as an overall Creator.  Also, God is personal, but there is a trinity, so God exists in 3 divine persons being unified by his Godlike nature, all persons, being eternal, infinite, immutable, one in doctrine, unity united by God-like nature, but different as persons, the who being distinguished from the what, in the same way who you are, father, son, friend, worker, is different from the what you are, a human being, so too God’s what (God’s nature) is different from the who (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), but having 3 persons, there are different roles, hence, God as unseen to humans doesn’t distinguish on the surface w/o further analysis the particular person unseen. It is evident from studying scripture that the Son of God is at times manifest perceptible to humans, but the Father and HS are not, so both God can be seen and unseen and would not be a true contradiction if we distinguish persons, So, when my opponent quotes, ““And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.” (Exodus 33:11), and such like verses showing God’s visibility there is based on quality of person’s emphasis and persons as depicted in the Bible’s trinity differences of sense and persons, in which the Son of God, not with all his full divine transcendent qualities, but of a condescending nature, made himself manifest to certain people like Moses or Jacob, the apostles  or epiphanies, or in incarnations (Melchizedek, Jesus), so he could be seen and heard in some sense.  This is not a contradiction to God the Father and the Holy Spirit not being seen, nor the fullness of all the transcendent qualities God truly is in his supreme glorified state not being seen. So my opponent and other bible critics don’t care to differentiate, but you must have the background of the Bible really to refute the biblical God.  My opponent didn’t distinguish God from his glorified form to his humbled condescended form as Philippians 2:5-11), nor the personhood differences as depicted in the triune God. 
 
Hence, my opponent’s core objection of a true contradiction regarding the seen and unseen natrue of God fails to disprove the Biblical God exists and since my opponent at least in the first 2 posts didn’t even bother to provide any other objections, it is clear he hasn’t refuted the pro-position that the Biblical God exists. Now, perhaps he will give some other arguments or criticisms of the biblical God in the final round, but keep in mind P2-19 where I touch on those, but w/o a chance to counter whatever my opponent might say as he has last-licks, we could just as well assume as I have adequately refuted his objection here, I would easily be able to do so, if I had the opportunity of a counter, so we must keep in mind my inability based upon the rules to address any arguments that weren’t proffered previously.  So if you see what looks like a good new point by my opponent in his last-licks argument, we shouldn’t take that as a unrefuted point at all, especially given my first 2 posts anticipated the basic arguments and addressed such of counters to my position in a somewhat thorough manner (27 points), so some of his potential future arguments could have been addressed there and the reader would have the luxury to avail himself of a 2nd read to see if such was touched on.  Also, you must consider the total amount of argument points provided in an argument. It is hard to justify the con truly winning a debate on a point I just demonstrated wasn’t a true contradiction w/o begging the question and only given 2,000 characters in 2 rounds, 1 forfeit with 1 objection to the pro position contrasted to 60,000 characters with 27 in-depth points, excluding the new one going to 90,000.  My opponent hasn’t nor should win this debate with such little effort, and sloppy criticism.  Such would be unjust and would only be necessitated not because of hte strength of his argument but partial WV considerations of those indifferent or hostile to the biblical WV, holding their own prejudicial conjecture and unguarded philosophical biases, or pure laziness in failing to read my argument at length or thoroughly or adding their own conjecture of their own bias w/o relying on my opponent’s particular argument to make that case.  This is a debate between our 2 positions, not those potentially others or even yourself may have, although I do feel confident I have addressed much if not all one can lobby for the con position.  My opponent likes to win on simplistic forms/conventions, or simple points he deems as illogical, but the simplicity here is misplaced and in nowise adequately refutes some major insightful ideas of this particular pro argument for the biblical God’s existence and rightly so because it is the true position, not just the best argued position because the Biblical God exists and it isn’t simply academic, but will affect our eternity to the degree or measures we apprehend that truth in our heart, potentially risking our eternity to potential damnation for rejection of the biblical God, so it is paramount we truly give this issue undo attentiveness with extreme consideration, because getting it wrong will affect our eternity.   So we need to get it right!  “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God…He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:18, 36). For more on so desperately needed salvation see P1-17 and P2-27.
 

I recommend my opponent to press the "shift" key once in a while. It is one thing to bulk your words to convey to the audience that this is the core of the argument, and another thing to do that for all information written here.

Because I don't need to. The topic is "The Biblical god exists", not "The Bible is true about there being a god". Our proof under scrutiny should not only suffice in proving that there is a god, but it strictly follows the Bible, as to no objection from Pro.

Neither is the topic "There exists a God that satisfies some attributes assigned by the Bible", the topic implies the proof/disproof of a God that directly obeys everything the Bible outlines, including contradictory statements. 

Strawman. I am not saying that "God" is like or unlike the kind Pro outlined in his arguments, I am not even stating whether there is a God or not, it just appeared to me that even if there is a God, assuming there is, it could not have been entirely biblical, due to the bible having contradictory descriptions.

Well, a person is an entity. The definition lined in blue. This section is not at all productive. Moving on.

No. The bible has two quotes, one of them saying that God cannot ever be seen(not that "God is not seen as of yet"), another saying that someone saw God. A biblical god obeying both is impossible in any point in time. All this long jibber-jabber does not change it: Either God cannot ever be seen or God can be seen at some point in time, not both.