I'll venture to answer your questions as best I can. But as others have commented, your questions and categories are somewhat simplistic, so some of my answers will be somewhat complex.
First, some general comments:
1) the Christian faith is multifaceted, with numerous aspects. It encompasses beliefs about God, nature, man, sin, salvation, etc. We often have slightly different reasons for our beliefs in each of these topics.
2) more specifically, your questions touch on two separate topics:
A) belief in the existence of a god
B) a personal relationship with God
These are separate topics. Many people believe in god's existence, but do not have a personal relationship with Him.
3) you ask essentially biographical, historical questions of how we came to our faith positions. This is fine, but it doesn't address the question of why we believe these things now. Our present epistemology is often different from our entrance into faith. As an analogy, I first believed in the concept of gravity as a child, simply on the authority of my parents and teachers. But as I got older, I studied and understood more about gravity. I still believe in gravity, but now I believe it based on experiments, observations, and equations.
Straggler writes:
QUESTIONS
1) Which came first for you personally (honestly) - Belief in God/Jesus/Bible or knowledge of the empirical evidence that you consider to support this position?
I believed in God's existence since a very young child.
I entered into a personal relationship with God through Jesus as an older child.
I went through a period of mild questioning while in college. I questioned my epistemology (why I believed these things) and realized that this had been based mainly on authority of others who I trusted. I thought through the issues and decided that there was both good empirical evidence and enough first-hand personal experience to be sure of these things.
Straggler writes:
2) Are your beliefs the result of rational and objective conclusions based on physical evidence which have been confirmed by your relationship with God OR are your beliefs based on your relationship with God which you deem to have been confirmed by the objective physical evidence available? Which way round is it?
Chronologically, the beliefs came first.
Epistemologically, both are involved, but the personal relationship is probably primary.
Straggler writes:
3) Could you maintain your faith in the absence of any objective empirical evidence that supports this position? (I.e. how faithful are you?)
Yes, I don't really need external evidence
for my position, so long as I have a personal relationship with God.
But it would be a problem for me if there were objective empirical evidence
against my position. I am a scientist. I could believe something where there was
lack of evidence, but would have serious trouble believing something which was
contradicted by evidence.
Straggler writes:
4) If the objective empirical evidence which you deem to support your beliefs were present but the relationship with God side of your faith was absent would you still believe as you do? (I.e. is the empirical evidence alone enough to maintain your position?)
I really don't know what I would believe apart from a personal relationship with God. I suspect that I would try to deny the empirical evidence that supports my beliefs.
Straggler writes:
5) Is empirical evidence or subjective knowledge of God's presence the root basis of your beliefs?
Both are involved, but the personal relationship is more important.
Straggler writes:
END QUESTIONS
SUMMARY
Ultimately I am trying to determine whether those advocating the more extreme Christian position think that it is possible for anyone who does not, and never will have, a personal and subjective relationship with God to draw the same conclusions that they have from the empirical evidence alone? Or is a degree of irrational belief essential?
This is a very different question from asking about our own personal journeys of faith (each of which is unique). Especially for someone like me, who came to faith as a child and thought it through on an intellectual level much later.
I believe that if anyone is honestly open to 1) God's existence, 2) the possibility of a personal relationship with Him, and 3) the possibility of submitting one's life to Him as Lord and Master, then the empirical evidence will be sufficient to draw this person into a personal relationship with God. As Jesus said, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." (John 7:17)
But if someone is
not open to submitting his life to God, I believe that he will (pehaps subconsciously) find a way to explain away all of the empirical evidence and will not view it the same way that believers do.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
™ Version 4.2
(1)
