Consider the following statements:
"1. All the evidence for [favourite god] is in [favourite holy book] which is the word of [favourite god]."Well, that isn't much good because no holy book has ever managed to convince anything like a majority of people so it can't have been written by an omniscient god. Besides, it should be manifestly obvious to anyone that no book or mere piece of writing can be proof of it's own truth, not even when it claims it is, otherwise anyone could create truth merely by writing it down and saying it's true. For example, this blog is all true because I said so and I should know, I created it. Convinced?
So, no holy book alone can be proof of a god.
2. "There is plenty of evidence for [favourite god] outside [favourite holy book] to prove what [favourite god] says in [favourite holy book] is true."Well, that isn't much good either because any god which needs evidence outside its holy book obviously can't write a good enough book to convince people, so its power must be limited. Therefore the claims of omnipotence in the holy book must be false.
So that just about does it for all the arguments followers of any god can muster and yet they both refute the god. The book manifestly isn't enough on its own, yet having to rely on anything else refutes the claims about the god in the book.
Who'd be religious eh? No wonder religious people have such an allergy to evidence and need to rely on 'faith', i.e. believing something they know isn't true.
[Note to religious people: Don't let me hold you back but if you try to argue that this logic doesn't hold, you will be arguing that all the other religions are true too. Sorry about that but that's what happens when all the different religions have to use each others arguments to try to prove they are the only true religion and so the ones they've pinched the arguments from are false.]