Realm here

[theVOID]

-I don't care what you label it,(in this case 'confirmation bias') my experiences are my own and i have used every reasonable faculty I possess to judge that they are believable experiences.

So you are saying that the reliability of your senses are better than that of the other billions of people who intuitively reach different conclusions? Surely not.

As fas as i am concerned the fact that one tends to seek out patterns related to their superstitions in their experiences and can do so regardless of what this superstition is or how contradictory it may be when compared to another group or individuals experience simply shows that the kind of 'standards' you are talking about are entirely inadequate in determining the truth of any such propositions. Any time a standard can bear contradictory conclusions it is obvious that the standard is insufficient.

-Yeah, my family agress with me that there is a God. So? Social background and environment have no baring on this, so you can stop your analytical bullshit train right there.

You were the one who weighed upon the importance of these situations for confirming your belief in your previous post. I don't give a shit about arguments from popularity, they are fallacies as any other. I simply pointed out the weight you seemed to attach.

Do you think that the fact people agree with you makes your belief more valid?

-No, I believe in the Bible because I have found it to be true; but I don't expect you to understand that.

Explain how you 'found it to be true'. I guarantee you that upon further examination any significance you may believe you have is rather mundane.

-And here we have the ultimate proof that you don't understand what I'm talking about; you refer to God as a 'wizard' and by doing so, misconstrue the nature of God entirely.
-He has. Your point?

They are both invocations of Magic, nothing more and nothing less. You can try to sophisticate it up all you like, but you just end up with a more complicated Wizard. All you have is this idea that Wizard solves all of your problems and answers all the big questions, but you have no valid reason to assume that such a being, call him God or Wizard, exists at all - let alone a way to discern between the Wizard doing magic and the God performing miracles.

Does it not bother you that i can replace the word God with Wizard in any argument for the existence of God, define the wizard as timeless, transcendental, supernatural, loving, omnipotent, omni-benevolent and say he wrote a book called King Arthur in which he came to earth as Merlin to teach the English King how to rule his people and in doing so have created a concept that is no more or less verifiable than your God?

So long as i define the Wizard as having the necessary attributes I could create a Wizard cult and obtain the same standard of subjective "evidence" you have for God too, we could even confirm our beliefs every time a convenient coincidence happens, and claim it is evidence for the existence of the loving Wizard, all the while ignoring the misses just like you.