Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

Further to what I was just saying, my cumulative case would break down if evidence was presented that made it clear that any grouping of my beliefs are likely to be false--which is a lower threshold than simply false. 

A good example: I don't think the earth was created in a literal 6 days. Why? Because I think that the evidence (scientific, exegetical, historical, etc.) shows that that belief is likely to be false. I don't think that my list contains beliefs that can be undercut like this.

---

What you seem to be saying Steve is that unless I can demonstrate what i don't believe you have provided evidence for to be false, then your default position wins. This is not how evidence usually works. Normally you make a claim, then provide sufficient evidence for that claim, it really is simple. You seem to be making a long winded god of the gaps argument with a bit of sparkle and noise to distract.

Not at all. I will paste the original list since it has been several pages.

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe: 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments: 
  a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
  b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
  c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
  d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
  e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments.

I have evidence and argumentation to support all of these reasons I have for my belief in God. Because of this, I am saying my reason are, by definition, rational unless you can provide some evidence they are false. Not "God of the Gaps" in any way. 

The difference here and the example above is that you have defined a god who cannot be evidenced in any empirical way,  in other words unfalsifiable (and therefore a faith statement) and then comparing it with falsifiable empirical evidence and presenting the two as comparable.

First, there are many claims about God that can be falsified--for example, the whole Jesus/NT thing. Second, something that cannot be falsified is not necessarily "faith". There are many many things that are neither. Falsificationism just differentiates between a scientific/empirical statement and a non-scientific/empirical statement. Philosophy of Science itself is not falsifiable--but is absolutely required to do "science". So something like the statement that "God exists" itself might not be falsifiable, but the reasons that support that statement can be. And that would close the loop back to my list. 

Effectively you are asking me to provide an empirical disclaimer to a non empirical unfalsifiable claim, then saying because I can't provide a naturalistic explanation that trumps your faith position, then faith wins.  I don't think I've ever seen such a confused presentation before.

I think I already answered the falsificationism question, but regarding "then faith wins". I don't think so. The successful defense of my list would only get me to a rational belief --not a "win". I didn't conclusively prove anything. I don't think that atheism is irrational either--it's a reasonable position to hold.

As for the 'likely to be false' explanation, why not simply adopt a 'has met the burden of proof' it's much more positive, to adopt a 'not likely to be false' stance seems to open the doors to an extremely subjective low burden of proof.  Yes atheists do require proof, who wouldn't as with any claim if you can't provide any evidence or proof then expect people to be sceptical.

Not "likely to be false" is not the burden of proof standard for myself. I was merely pointing out that my reasons to believe don't have other explanations that I am ignoring to preserve a low-probability argument because it fits with the rest of the reasons. 
Christians do provide evidence and reasons. By definition, an atheist has not found any they have heard to be convincing. After you solve all the definition problems with 'evidence' and 'proof', all an atheist has the right to say is that there is no evidence or proof that is convincing to them. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or to struggle with definitions of words like 'evidence' and 'proof'. 
Good conversation, I'm enjoying it.