I'm not leaving until I convert someone.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, the OP insisted one of us read this and refute it before he went, so, I'll have a go.

The Bible is the most extensive and authenticated historical document in existence.

Not really. What about, well, most modern history books?

It has extensive falsifiable details that have proven to be accurate by archeology.

Bare assertions; I went to a Catholic school and even they admitted that the archaeological evidence for the Bible is scant. Also, even if some of the events can be verified, this doesn't mean the whole thing is true. Just because it's been proven there was a city called Troy that got sacked doesn't mean Homer's The Iliad was a true story where the Gods were actively making everything happen.

The integrity of the handed down text has been proven to be virtually the same as the original text or text documented soon after the historical events.

Not true. There is quite a bit of evidence of passages that were added to established Biblical texts after the fact. Just to name the three most famous examples:

• The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) This is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the entire Bible, and it seems to have slowly creeped into the Bible by the 10th century.
  
• The story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. This famous story does not appear in any of the earliest manuscripts.
  
• Jesus' resurrection in Mark. This also does not appear in the earliest manuscripts; this is also quite significant, given that scholars generally agree the gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on Luke, so this raises serious questions about the Resurrection even from a textual standpoint.
  

Bart D. Ehrman has written several books about this sort of thing happening.

C. S. Lewis stated that Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic. Josh McDowell referred to this argument as a “trilemma.” The argument was that Jesus couldn’t be just a great moral teacher as some have argued. He either had to be Lord, liar, or lunatic!

And there's a fourth L Lewis and McDowell didn't even count upon: Legend. Given that there's almost no contemporary evidence of Christ's deeds, the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was just a normal Jew who may have taught the same things as Jesus in the Bible and maybe ruffled enough feathers to get executed shouldn't be that hard to think about.

Since He didn’t fit the stereotype of a liar or lunatic at all, He had to be Lord.

Okay, you just admitted you're basing this on stereotypes. This has just shot itself in the foot, since stereotypes aren't often a totally accurate portrait of reality.

The evidence for Jesus to be God is overwhelming even though many do not accept Him now just as they didn’t accept Him as God when He was on earth. However, that lack of acceptance has nothing to do with the facts.

Does it?

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the best documented event in history.

Um, no. It wasn't even the most documented event in the 1st century AD. We have eyewitness reports of the eruption of Vesuvius and the burial of Pompeii. The number of contemporary sources that talk about Christ in his century that seems to resemble the Christ of the Bible: ZERO. As a result, there is serious reason to doubt that he even existed.

Details of this event were predicted by more than 100 unique prophecies in the Old Testament written long before the event. Many of the prophecies were the kind that couldn’t be faked.

They also claimed he would:

[*] Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
[*] Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
[*] Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
[*] Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Jesus did none of these things.

Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. His documented wisdom confounded His adversaries and His miracles verified He is God.

And none of this can be independently verified.

Another evidence that God exists is that we can see Him in His creation. The concept and design of our universe necessitate an intelligent designer.

Bear in mind that this argument has been around forever, and even before Darwin published The Origin of Species, people like David Hume were shooting holes in this argument.

Here's his objections in a nutshell.

• Order doesn't always come from design (example: Snowflakes)
  
• We can't claim a universe is designed unless we know what an undesigned universe would look like.
  
• Even if it true that there is a designer, it doesn't mean that this designer is anything good, let alone anything that conforms with Christian standards.
  
• If a well-ordered world requires a designer, then the designer would himself require a designer, and so on, ad infinitum.
  

Really, the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion are full of arguments and counterarguments of this type.

That same Bible that has been shown over and over again to be true and verifiable makes that assertion. It states in Romans 1:20 (NKJV) that, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. . .”

So do most other religious texts. What's your point?