"If the sun has come up every morning that I can remember, should I expect that it will come up tomorrow?"

Well, naturally if an event occurs periodically for your entire life, or for a long period of time, it makes sense to put forth a hypothesis that states that it will continue to do so. However, if you have no physical or mathematical theory to govern the behavior of the sun and its patterns (followups to the original hypothesis; attempts to justify it) then what you are left with is an unjustified, unscientific belief. Without an understanding of *why* the sun will rise tomorrow, a scientist must take the position that it might not rise in the morning, since he does not have a model to describe why it rises in the first place.

Your example is a bit disingenuous, since we do understand why the sun "rises" every day. Thus, we can be scientifically confident that it will continue to do so, unless a cataclysmic event effects the rotation of the earth, or the sun takes in enough mass to collapse into a black hole, or whatever. However, hypotheses without justification, ("God exists") are without scientific backing and can't be put into the same category as "the sun rising," because that resides in the realm of science. Apples and oranges, homey-g. Now, I'm not using this argument to *disprove* the existence of God, I'm just saying that your argument is extremely faulty.

"The Bible has been a great benefit to me not only in moral issues but in correctly ascertaining the physical laws as well...If I am shown an error I must assume that the fault is due to my limited knowledge and understanding because the Bible has been correct too many times to be a coincidence. "

What physical laws?