Well, you are certainly a lot better at Bayesian Statistics than I am. But if I am to base my "physics-defying, benevolent, superintelligent sky wizard" hypothesis on evidence such as badly written holy books that look spuriously like hodge-podge culture dumps, the general religious disagreement, the continued non-answering of prayers, failure to divine simple mathematical or physical truths, and how science is significantly more productive, well... Every time a prayer goes unanswered I can theoretically update on it for a lower credence. Every conflicting holy scripture allegedly bequeathed by the divine, claiming to be the one truth is a major hit.

Meanwhile the hypothesis that what most people call religious experiences is located in the temporal lobe gains credence from every cognitive neuro-scientific study of it.

If you haven't updated your credence of immortal physics defying super-intelligent friendly sky wizards in a while, I am going to tell you to look harder. The evidence is there. From what you state it seems that you might suffer from motivated cognition and belief hysteresis, so take this opportunity to get a feel on those so you might recognize them in the future.

Now, for the hypothesis of "immortal physics-defying wizard doing whatever makes the world seem normal" is strictly dominated by the hypothesis of "whatever makes the world seem normal". That is Minimum Message Length/Solomonoff Induction right there.

But given that you already have Bayes down to a science, I don't see why you should become a fine Lesswrongian in just a short time. Welcome to lesswrong.