"That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust."

There's plenty of verifiable (better word - OK?) evidence from the past. You can go and see fossils or visit archaeological sites. YOu can study geological formations and carry out radio-isotope dating. None of it will ever yield certainty and every scientist will cheerfully admit that, but the evidence is verifiable. That's the basis of scientific progress. Same with astronomy - you may not be able to corroborate evidence personally but that is not to say it can't be verified by people qualified to do so who are in the right place with the right gear. A story told by someone long-dead in a heavily-edited and translated book is not verifiable (unless you can somehow find several different completely independent sources, and verify that independence). Even then it's still a story and you can't grill the bloke who wrote it. There is a difference.