Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith).

Exactly what we are looking for in empirical evidence of god's interaction with humanity, care to offer some? Witness's from 2,000 years ago that we know little about outside of a collection of books written after the events does not count as empirical evidence that we can trust, otherwise why not believe in all claimed gods ?

The events of the NT are exactly what you are asking for. Then you simply say that "does not count". Your measurement is entirely subjective and based on the content because it does not matter what you say, if there were two more books in the NT with two more people, you would have the same answer. I don't care if you don't find my list a through k compelling--it is evidence of the existence of God. It might not meet your standard for individual proof--because 1) your standard is more skeptical, 2) you really don't know exactly what you are talking about with the NT, or 3) because you have a bias (or most likely a combination of the three). 

Christians are claiming that we not only have the god described long ago, but that the very same god interacts with us today, do you have an empirical evidence you so gracefully highlighted ?

There are billions who will tell you their experiences are real. Are you going to accept that? Are you going to accept that minor miracle happen every day? No, you have dismissed that body of evidence with a little circular reasoning: experiences are not real because there is no supernatural, therefore there is no evidence of the supernatural. 

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did.

This perhaps come down to your ignorance of other faith claims, which are in every way as convincing (or unconvincing) as your own, and have witnesses to the events, and that we know exactly who they are and even what they looked like, and a mass following that claim miracles much more convincing that Christian testimony, and yet still not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

We were both right. An angel separately showed the plates to the other three. We are right back to individual experiences with nothing public for people to witness. A very very different category of claim altogether from the NT. 

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude.

Being the most examined does not make anything true

Kind of throws cold water on the argument that "well, we just don't know about the sources..."

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Nobody is denying that a teacher called Jesus lived and started a cult just like nobody denies that Joseph Smith or Mohamed existed
Or that the authorities of the time regarded it as a cult. The only real account of Jesus himself outside the bible Joesphus, is thought to have been tampered with by the early church making it very unreliable.  And that from stories rather than personal experience.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

But now aren't we relying on the bible to  prove the bible, without first proving the bible to be an accurate true account. ?  
It's clear even from Lukes account  (Synoptic) Gospel that it is a copied account of what he was already told, and he had prepared a copy of other stories, the Synoptic gospels cannot be regarded as accumulative evidence. Nor were any of the gospels written from a first person perspective, nor is there anything in the narrative to suggest even that the authors expected any reader to believe that

Ah, but you are just spouting off subjective requirements of the gospels. The fact remains that there were 4 gospels that were accepted by the first and second century church as accurate. They would have know the provenance of each. There is also a lot of evidence of earlier writings from textual critics (like Q). There is also the twin series of facts that Paul enunciates the gospel message in his letters long before the gospels were written and there were multiple churches that existed across the Roman empire that believed these thing--long before the gospels. Another fact is that all the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and rebuttal witnesses. The cumulative case is very solid despite your subjective requirements imposed after the fact.  

It's a bit like me copying the story of Mohamed popping a few things of my own in there, and then claiming greater credibility simply because more than one account exists.. it's utter nonsense. 

That's a huge assertion with no evidence. 

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen.

 
Well it would seem logical that the evidence of a god that does miracles would be, well miracles, or am i missing something ?
Many religions claim miracles from their chosen deity, should we believe those too, simply because they are claimed ?   

Depends how many claim to have seen them and over what time period, was there a greater context for the claims, what were the odds of seeing the after-effect if there were not any miracles (multiple writings, mobilization of large numbers of people, established churches that repeated the claim within a decade or two--despite persecution), what was in it for the people who repeated the claim, and lastly, what was the underlying message of the claim (was the message compelling and instructed love/respect/self-sacrifice/and humility)?

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale.

To ask for evidence though is just plain sensible, asking for evidence of such a living god, don't forget you are not claiming a god who just did miracles then, but also one that does miracles now.

answered all this in my statements above. 

The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) 

Being the most written about does not mean true that's just special pleading, a bit like saying X-Billion believers can't be wrong.

No, that is a simple statement of fact: these are the most written about (from the actual period) series of events -- 27 documents describing a time period spanning 70 or so years. AND then we have unbroken series of documents from the first century on to today--making sure there is no revisionist history. 

and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history.

Most re-written or studied does not mean more evidence, it means they were fantastic stories even in a world riddled with ridiculous beliefs.

Not re-written. The NT is though by scholars to be as much as 99% as the original--with the differences being non-theology related. 

In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims.

You mean people who believe ? that's only evidence that people believed something, not a argument for it's truth, again it's like saying X Billion have believed, therefore it must be true, such nonsense.

Many other religions claim many miracles for many gods throughout history, should we believe them also ?

You keep bringing that up like it's an answer. To what are you referring to? I can't show you why you are wrong when you pose vague comparisons. 

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.

It points to the nature of the god you claim to serve in the same book you count as evidence, is it therefore wrong of us to expect that all these attributes should be true (if your god exists) and that there should be evidence of them being true.?

Yes, you should expect they are true (as I said). The list is not proof or even evidence. It is a description of God--which to even consider would require belief in God. I continue to fail to see your point.