Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

If you want to insist that religious faith is the same thing as simply having trust in somethingI will insist on that yes. As you mention, its having trust that Jesus is who he says he is and did what he said he was going to do. The bridge was merely an example, obviously you don't need to have a ton of faith in the bridge but you do need to have some. Let's not pretend like bridges have never failed before.I do not require irrefutable proof, to not have faith in something.All of your arguments make it seem like you do. For me personally, if you take into account all of the evidence I'm much more compelled to believe in a creator than to believe the big bang happened for no reason. I'll defer to the Kalām cosmological argument.So because the author of Luke sometimes mentions wind direction and water depth, the supernatural elements of the bible must be true?Well that's a gross misinterpretation. I'm merely saying that there are over 80 historically confirmed details associated to Luke (there might be more now actually). It isn't just a couple things, he was a meticulous historian and thus I think should be given the benefit of the doubt. Let's be honest, your disbelief in the super natural stems from you not believing in God. If you don't believe in God, of course the supernatural makes no sense. I will only point out that science is not the only way to absolute truth. I have an issue with science making these kinds of philosophical truth claims. If you insist on it, I would ask that you empirically prove the argument that "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true."Well, considering the fact that the bible was written by numerous authors over such a long period of time it really isn't that meticulous, but even so:Specificity does not equal veracity.Actually I believe currently, there is a good case for many of the documents compiled into the Bible to have been written within 30 years of Jesus' death. That is certainly not enough time to be legendary as many historians would point out.Ancient literature is notorious for combining historical events with mythological events. Ancient Jewish texts were no different. That somethings mentioned therein are true is not a particularly compelling argument for why we should believe that all of it is true.Its not just "somethings" there is a great deal that has been verified. We're not just talking about one or two things, in general when people, places, and things are named by the Bible there is a good chance there's evidence supporting their existence.Shintoism in Japan. Hinduism in India. Islam in Saudi Arabia. Christianity in the United States. Judaism in Israel. Sikhs in Punjab. Mormons in Utah. Catholicism in Brazil.Geo-cultural influences are a much better predictor of one's religious faith than anything else.I was asking for an example of a historical fact in the Bible being wrong as I don't know any off the top of my head and haven't come into contact with any during my reading. However I would point out that those are not the only religions in those places. And, Catholicism = Christianity, in theory anyways.I look forward to your next points.