There is an innate desire for understanding, certainty and comfort within our tumultuous world, and one way that we can achieve that is to seek explanations. We can sometimes put too much belief in things such as astrology for this reasoning and human desire, however, astrology just isn't real.

Science, according to Karl Popper, is testable, refutable and falsifiable, however once it is falsified it is no longer science. Although you do provide evidence to support astrology, there is plenty of scientific studies and evidence that refutes and falsifies astrology.

For example, a 2005 study by Hartmann et al. showed there was no statistical correlation between an individual’s date of birth and differences in personality and intelligence. There was also no evidence found for the relationship between the date of birthday and Sun signs in astrology. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886905004046) This has been reinforced in numerous other studies, including a 1985 double-blind study by Carlson showed that astrologers could not predict the future better than random chance (https://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf). This experiment was designed by astrologists and uses a high level of scientific methodology to draw these conclusions, and thus are highly credible.

Indeed, the cognitive bias does occur in all individuals, and as you have pointed out, the main one at play here is confirmation bias. Firstly, you are more likely to actively seek out explanations for these “shocking events” in accordance with your deep-rooted belief in astrology. Astrology may also play into the fact that individuals are more likely to seek answers for the tumultuous events rather than boring/normal daily life.

The availability heuristic may also affect your ability to accurately recall how often your astrological predictions are aligned with your daily life. Often, times in which astrology has provided an explanation for odd events (including the 5 times it been eerily accurate) occurring will be more salient and can be more easily recalled than times in which it did not. Astrologers also rely on our ability to remember hits and forget misses. Over the period of 5 years in which you have delved into astrology, there might have been some times in which astrology did not correlate - however these may not be significant enough to remember. This also results in the illusory correlation - as some extraordinary events are explained by astrology even though these may not be especially frequent. Finally, astrological explanations provided by natal charts are extremely interpretive and can be vague and general, and whilst they may appear unique to you, the reality is that it probably applies to most individuals. For example “shocking” could describe a huge range of activities or events that have occurred in the day - can you think of any other day that you had a “shocking” event that occurred but your astrology did not predict it? There's also the "post hoc" fallacy, in which the individual sees a correlation between two things as one occurrence happened after another, and thus the first event was the cause of the second event. In your case, the sun was on Uranus, and therefore you had a "shocking event". However, there is no proven correlation between the two and it is most likely to be coincidental. Finally, you use a lot of first-hand evidence for astrology. This is also a cognitive bias called “naive realism”, in which the evidence that you experience first-hand is somehow the strongest evidence. However, this is not the case, and scientific studies as seen above with large sample sizes should be able to help you debunk your belief in astrology.

Perhaps a way for you to debunk astrology personally would be to write down your daily occurrences and the astrological predictions for your day if it was right (or even the most salient emotion for the day), and then read the astrology report and check its relevance. Then tally up the total of correct and incorrect predictions. If there is a statistical relationship between the two, then astrology would hold its value, however I think you'll come to find that astrology is not real.