All you seem to be saying is that you are really sure that your god exists. This surety you lable 'knowing'. All well and good.
The problem I and maybe a few others have is that you cannot demonstrate what leads you to accept the evidence of reality as an indication that your god is real.
As the title of this thread indicates; the buck stops with your appraisal of evidence and your appraisal is that your god is real.
Now, for you this appraisal is appropriate (we could go into why but lets not do that). This differs with my own appraisal of evidence (again suffice it to say we apprais differently) for your god so we must conclude that we interpret the meaning of the evidence of reality differently.
I guess the only real difference is that my appraisals of reality are more likely to conform to a materialistic reality because I cannot conclude otherwise (based on me being me) and you conclude the opposite because you cannot conclude other wise (based on you being you.
As I said. Who would argue with that?
If you want to duke out whos appraisal is more accurate surley that's a different issue?