Why debate God's existence since faith is required

I hate to do this cuz I do appreciate all the work you have put into your answer to me, but you are getting away from the original question posed, & what needs to be answered here. You seem to be hung up on a certain definition of faith & evidence, which does not explain why people do certain things ....... like believe in God, love, loyalty, experiment, take a different path, etc. Science cannot empirically provide facts why people do different things, other than using neurology & physiology to explain it. But that still does not explain why we do the things we do satisfactorily in many cases. Just cuz science determines facts, how is faith lumped into something that science cannot prove? Your definition of being able to believe in something seems that there is a need for an observable 'thing'. Your comment of "The only acceptable evidence is evidence that can be observed regularly using any of the human senses," limits evidence with, once again, your own self-limiting definition of evidence. It follows then that a feeling one has of trusting someone, or belief, does not fit does it? Where is the observable scientific standard? What trusting is for one person, surely is not the same for another. & having that faith in the other to trust them cannot be proven cuz that person may have ulterior motives, & not deserving of trust, only wanting something from you using trust as a ruse. Ergo, there is no absolute proof. But I am getting away from the question originally asked & the one we are supposed to debate. Pretty much the rest of your last answer to me attempts to disprove God without the use of faith, which is for maybe another debate, but not this one. You try to use correlation of loosely tied comparisons to discredit things in the bible. If this was a widely accepted ruse of the bible to hijack mythology, then the bible would have been exposed for just that. To use a theory that is not accepted in any regarded academia to argue your point, only shows opinion & therefore does nothing for your cause. Your last paragraph of "I find Christianity and all religions to be full of holes. And I find too many similarities among religions to find one more acceptable than another. I also find them all hard to believe due to a lack of evidence," has nothing to do with the original question asked here. This may be your belief & opinion & you are most certainly entitled to it. You never have answered the question of, why debate God's existence since faith is required? Instead, you have given your own opinion of definitions of faith & evidence that fits your perception of those words. Most of your verbiage here consists of your own belief system, which does nothing to answer the question. Ya see, it doesn't matter why you or I believe or what we do concerning God in this discourse. What matters is why God's existence is debated when there is no definitive proof from either side .......... it takes faith. & faith is ones perception of evidence & is not necessarily right or wrong, altho can be considered as such. You have defined faith, not by the worldwide accepted definitions, but by your personal beliefs of what it should mean & therefore cherry picked, which is opinionated & self-limiting, & therefore an invalid argument with the original question asked in mind.