Why is belief in a higher power required?

[Statler Waldorf]

That's fine, then. That means I can just say "There is no God" and it's a fact until you prove otherwise. So get on it.

No, you’re still trying to play by the rules you could not prove were valid, you’d have to prove there is no God since all claims have burden and not just positive claims, so where’s your atheistic proof?

You can offer no plausible basis for your justifications. I'm being honest.

The fact we can obtain knowledge is proof that my justification is warranted.

Then, be so kind as to point me to a single example.

Ok, you. You are the example; you’re utter inability to justify any of your beliefs without invoking the God of scripture is proof that reality is incoherent without His existence. Whenever you make a case against God’s existence you’re assuming God exists. Pretty cool eh?

Prove that God's existence is necessary for it to be possible to learn about reality. Or, if you prefer, prove that I can't know anything about reality without him.

I already did! I challenged you to demonstrate how you can trust your senses and memory in a Universe where God does not exist. You could not do so, and yet this belief must be true in order for us to know anything at all. The Christian has no such problem, he or she has reasons for believing that their senses and memory are reliable, the non-Christian does not.

Proof?

That is an informal proof, you and I both believe “A”, and yet “A” requires “B” to also exist. You cannot believe “A” without also believing “B”; you cannot believe your senses are reliable without also believing that God exists.

Genesis 6:6

That was still part of the plan though.

a: What the original document is and what it actually says

I already explained how we can obtain what the originals said by textual comparisons through the early copies.

b: That the original is truly original

Of course there has to be an original, copies cannot exist without an initial manuscript to copy.

c: That any copy is accurate

They do not have to be very accurate, as I already demonstrated you can determine what the original said from even a very sloppy set of copies.

d: That the original is a flawless record of events which are empirically factual

No, this is a starting point, not a conclusion.

Your fellow Christians tell me that evil is whatever goes against the will of your god. Are they wrong?

Not necessarily wrong, but a bit roughly stated.

When you prove that a single demonstration is an indisputably correct one, and you take care of the four problems noted above, then you'll be at square one and you actually have an intellectually legitimate basis to make a single claim. Until then, there is no compelling reason to think you're not just a belligerent fraud making shit up, or (more likely) that you're a troll riling us up by making deliberately terrible arguments.

A troll that’s been on here longer than you have? Right. Please point to one of these alleged terrible arguments and explain why it is terrible.