Please showcase this logic you speak of without scriptures. It has to be without scriptures for the use the object that you are trying to prove in your proof leads to a circular argument which is not logical.

For example, I can argue that Harry Potter is real because the book tells me it's real. The Harry Potter books are teh uncontested and error free account of the life of Harry Potter. But, if I don't use the books, then there is no evidence that he is real and thus I come to the logical conclusion that outside of the books, Harry Potter does not exist.

In the same vein, you argue that god is real because the bible tells you that he's real. But, if I don't use the bible as in the Harry Potter example, then like Harry Potter, there is no evidence that he is real and thus we come to the logical conclusion that outside of the bible, god does not exist.

In counterdistinction, my physics text tells me that objects in a vacuum accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. Now, if I don't use my physics textbook, I can go out and find independent evidence that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Thus I come to the logical conclusion that this value is "real" since it is independent of the book I first encountered it.

Finally, if your logic is that the bible is error free and thus this qualifies it as divine, then the Koran is MORE error free as it is written in the original language from whece it was received. So logically if you have two books claiming divine will, one a translation of a collection of divine texts and another a non-translated single text, then logically the Koran is closer to god's word than the bible. Thus by your own logic, you have CHOSEN to believe in the bible IN SPITE of your own logic which tells you there are more direct words of god out there.