Why is belief in a higher power required?

[Ryantology]

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?

I don't actually make a positive claim that God doesn't exist (if only because I know how readily Christians like you will latch onto that point to shift attention away from the fact that you can't prove your positive claim).

All I state is a simple fact: no evidence exists suggesting God does exist. And you don't help by not providing any.

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

Prove this assertion.

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?

Assertions don't prove assertions. I'm sorry, but this is not proof that your God exists.

I invoke your scripture to showcase its many flaws. For fun and entertainment. My beliefs, themselves, have nothing to do with your God or scripture. There's no truth to your claim, so it doesn't factor at all. Your worthless beliefs are no more important to me than the worthless beliefs of every other deity-worshiping religion in the world.

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.

Unsupported assertions don't even begin to qualify as evidence that your God exists.

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.

Unsupported assertions don't prove other unsupported assertions. Is this all you have? You really suck at this.

That was still part of the plan though.

God planned to regret his decision? That sounds logical.

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

Such shoddy standards you have for discovering facts. There's no proof that any original manuscript is the original form of the story you know. Tales were often passed by word of mouth, sometimes for centuries, before someone committed them to paper.

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

Of course. And you have no idea what it is, a rough idea of what it said, and no idea where the actual stories originated or the forms they first took. Ever heard of the game "Telephone"?

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.

If I am to believe that the Bible is the truth of the universe as delivered by a perfect god, the tiniest flaw calls the entire text into question. As noted, your standards are low enough to be satisfied by such shoddy evidence as what you have, but not all of us suffer such intellectual failings.

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

Of course it's a starting point, the point from which the legitimacy of all copies follow. Until you establish the legitimacy of your story, it's only true to you because you want it to be true.

Not necessarily wrong, but a bit roughly stated.

Yet, you dispute me when I merely repeat what they say?

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.

I've just finished responding to one.