I don't need to support what God said. What God said trumps all challenges of any sort. In a debate you either agree to accept your opponent's premise or not.
My God tells me that your God does not exist, at least in the form you think.
My God tells me that the story of the creation can be learned by studying the created.
My God tells me that the Earth is billions of years old.
My God tells me that the "Great Flood" never happened.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
Those are your premises and you may require an opponent to accept them for a particular debate it seems to me, but what happens is that your premises are acceptable here and mine aren't so I am TACITLY required to accept yours while my own are consistently denied.
Neither "the premises" of what "your God" said, nor "the premises" of what "my God" said are required to be accepted in the pursuit of empirical investigation.