You are at best an Agnostic

Unless of course the existence of God is dependent on falsifiable claims (and if the proof you talk about is independent of any idea of "dwelling place", your objection is itself false). For example, it might not be possible to disprove the existence of ANY kind of God, but the traditional biblical one would certainly be falsifiable. Failed prophecies, God tempts not but he tempts Job and others, etc. Here's just five examples (source below)

* God renames Jacob twice (32:28, 35:10 ). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway (47:28-29). And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10
* God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3
* Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. 3:10
* God promises Josiah that he will have a peaceful death. But Josiah's death was anything but peaceful. (2 Kg.23:29-30, 2 Chr.35:23-24) 22:20
* This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18

There are many others, but for more, read http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html .

Humility is a virtue.

You can easily find answers to your Scriptural objections.
I can answer them myself but I refuse to spend that amount of time on someone who will source an atheist/skeptic website but not go to a Christian apologetics website to find how Christians answers those apparent "contradictions" and so called "failed prophecies."

Here are five arguments for the existence of God that you may be interested in studying, if even only to bolster your unbelief.

Cosmological Argument- every effect needs a sufficient cause.
Teleological Argument- order and complexity point to intelligence and purpose.
Anthropological Argument- man's universal belief in something greater than himself points to a higher order of being than man.
Moral Argument- man's belief in right and wrong point to a universal moral law.
Ontological Argument- man's concept of a greatest being is proof that such a being exist.

Just the opposite. My confirmation bias used to argue the opposite on behalf of the biblical texts, but integrity won out and I stopped making elaborate excuses for things that were obviously false.

I'm well familiar with most of the apologetics-type arguments, I've spent a fair bit of time on their websites and had discussions with one or two. Some of them are worthy of the Talmudic rabbis in how far over backwards they have to bend in order to fabricate rationalizations.

It takes only ONE disproof of literalist biblical interpretations to puncture the whole scheme as false. I gave you several, the link has many dozens more (by no means exhaustive).

It is not an independent thinker like me (having proven my willingness to change my beliefs when confronted with evidence), it is a dogmatic like you who lives in terror that his worldview could collapse that evidences true confirmation bias. Every item I posted for you is an objective phenomenon independent of what I or you might believe, and any reader can read them for him or herself.

Cosmological - rests on redefinition of sufficient. Teleological = non sequitur. Anthropological = ditto. Moral = possible but does not point to deity. Ontological = raw fallacy: the ancient Greeks believed in not one but twelve, but that proved nothing and therefore disproves your principle.

And if you had paid attention, which you did not, you would have noticed I did not even claim to disprove a deity (in fact I could probably make better arguments for one than you), just the traditional one resting on the easily invalidated biblical texts. So I again repeat, if instead of lamely claiming "some apologist somewhere must have made some defense somehow, however weak, therefore I don't have to think about this," you read and study for yourself, you can grow out of your shell.

But you'd have to get past the terror underlying your "confirmation bias" first, and few are truly equal to that. Good luck anyway.

You have no idea how long I lived in unadulterated hardcore ant-theistic hatred for all things religious, especially biblical Christianity.

But God saved me later in life with no prior "religious" experience. I think that is the difference between you and I, you had a form of religion that you believed and lived by whereas God actually regenerated me.

What happened to me can not be undone and a person can not be argued into nor out of what happened to me. Whereas, a person can be argued into or out of "religion."

So you are projecting onto me what used to describe you. I am perfectly secure in my relationship to God and in my belief system to stand up against any attack by unbelievers.

I don't think that you are even secure in your unbelieving worldview because the tirade you went on and how you began projecting onto me insecurity of belief system.

Projection? The irony.

You grasped nothing of what I said - twice - between a deity and the biblical one. Which pretty much tells me nothing I say will sink into you.

You actually used the words "tirade" and "attack by unbelievers". This tells me that rational discussion with other human beings is not even in your conceptual grasp.

And the one thing a fundie will absolutely NEVER do is talk specifics, like thoughtfully examine the points I made. And you even announced your intention to never think about them. Discussion definitely over.