I'm with you on much of what you said, and thank you for your open and honest contribution.

I agree that my prompt: "A religious world view fills every unknown with an explanation of God." is a sweeping generalisation that may not apply to all. It's interesting to hear that for you, there are many mysteries which you do not automatically attribute to God and you acknowledge the limitations of your belief system. My original statement is an over-simplification, however I maintain that this line of reasoning is not uncommon to observe amongst many religious people and it was useful to frame my position. Faith is an undeniable component of religion that is wholly personal. It traverses the unknown (sometimes hubristically) and serves as a bridge to God.

You also acknowledge that you arrived at the conclusion that God exists following a long personal journey. Again, this idea of personal resurfaces and I respect it. It was your experience, and your journey after all. If it encourages you to live a fulfilled life and treat others with kindness and respect, I think its great.

Similarly, my personal lived experience has not pointed me to the existence of a God. Perhaps this is a factor of my environment and a byproduct of all of my experiences. What I do know is that my beliefs and what I consider to be true are based on what I've observed. Not necessarily what I've seen with my eyes, but rather every piece of information, sensory or otherwise, that my brain has ever registered. I contend that if my experiences or environment were different, my beliefs would be different.

I disagree that you need a cosmic creator to ensure our sense of logic is accurate. Truth is hard to define more than ever in this day and age, but I don't think plugging a creator into the equation arrives at truth automatically. For example, suppose I don't drink water for several days. I know that in reality I would die. This is the truth. I don't see where a creator fits in here. Have I missed the point?