Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[Purple Rabbit]

1- All I have to go off of is what I've observed for myself. I think I defined God here fairly specifically. Do I think every Chrsitian will agree to at a minimum the cited? No, but I think it'd be a percentile in the nineties. I only assume that because no one's done the study and from my observations I've yet to meet any Christian in the disagreeing percentile. This definition hasn't changed since I've been a Christian and it is verifiable, go ask someone claiming to be a Christian. I'm not redefining, playing with words or moving any goal posts.

There is no way to distinguish the definition you are referring to from a pile of dirty laundry left rotting in the sun.

Some examples:
"God is the Alpha, the Omega,"
This is not cognitively meaningfull. Are we to understand that god has a beginning and an end? If not than what? Get some critical thinking in it. You try to define something with undefined terms. It is like a sign on every office window saying "we will help you at the next office window"...

"the one true God"
Completely devoid of any information and circular. We are to conclude that "God is the one true God"? This is childlike brabble and an insult of my intellect. Don''t refer to this nonsense again.

"God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity."
1 - Not describing what god IS.
2 - The "thus" is a non sequitur since even animals without humanlike conscious can have personal relations with humans
3 - Up to this point nothing in your definition makes clear how to distinguish between god and human

"God is creator,"
Creator of what and how are we to verify that? As long as there is no way to verify that it was your god that created it and not one of the millions of gods "around" it is cognitively empty. So far the definition is still very vague and according to it my dog fits your definition. And I haven't even got one.

"redeemer,"
1 - Say, is this definition only for personal use? If so, it has no value for further distribution. If not, with a definition others should be able to identify an entity in reality with it unambiguously. That's anything but a far cry with this "definition".
2 - So far nothing but humanlike traits

"guide."
1 - Michelin?
2 - So far nothing but humanlike traits

This is so boringly stupid, that it hurts my sensitive brain. Due to medical reasons I'll stop here.

2-Regardless of how you feel about it, subjective evidence is evidence by it's very definition. My evidence may not be usefull to your truth, but truth is subjective for us I think. That doesn't mean you couldn't find similar evidence of your own; then, what seems like confirmation bias from your current perspective would be corroboration of subjective truth leading to a universal truth concept.

Complete crap. Subjective evidence is a contradiction in terms invented to free ride on scientifc methodology. Evidence in the real word is verifiable by others, subjective evidence is not. Subjective evidence is nothing but opinion. Since anyone can believe in anything whether it's true or not, subjective evidence has no value at all in predicate logic.

This is how silly your claim is:

P1 I have subjective evidence that I am Napoleon
C Therefore I am Napoleon