Sometimes some skeptics seem to be a bit off track when demanding evidence for the existence of a god. While not extremely common, it's not extremely unusual to see something like this:
"Prove the existence of God without referencing anything in the Bible."
There may be good intent in this, but imposing that restriction is completely unnecessary, really. If someone wants to try to prove the existence of a god using the
Bible, then they can go right ahead. Using the Bible to do that is one
of the weakest possible ways of proving that. It's completely useless.
existence of something is not proven by reading some words in a book,
no matter what those words are. You can literally write anything you
want, and it proves absolutely nothing. Existence of something is
demonstrated via direct observation, measurement and testing, not by the
words of some book.
Every single argument that could be made from the Bible, even if they were true,
would still not prove the existence of a god. For example, a common
argument is that the Bible presents some information that was impossible
for the people of the time to know. While that's demonstrably untrue,
even if we granted that claim for the sake of argument, it would still
not prove the existence of a god. Why? Because we don't know the source
of that information. Even if it was indeed impossibly advanced
knowledge, we would have to first determine where they got that
knowledge before jumping to a god. Jumping to a god would be a
non-sequitur, an argument from ignorance.