That's fine. But at what point does an anecdote of a changed mind and life become admissible in the public court of reason? Do you require one story? What about a thousand? A million? Tens of millions?
At what point would a rational person conclude, "Hmm, maybe their answer may also apply to me?" I at least figured I could say "OK, God, if you might be the Answer, then show me the way..."
The fact of the matter is, even among those "thousands" and "millions" you're going to have a lot of wildly different interpretations, understandings and beliefs.
Religion itself isn't even a single answer - it's a personal decision that applies to someone however they choose to apply it in their lives. You may see it as a "relationship with god," but the next person may see it as a set of teachings to live by.
There's not "the" way, there's many ways to find balance or self-enlightenment (even the goals can vary from person to person!) A 'rational person' would never conclude that "their answer may also apply to me," a rational person would find their own answer, whether that answer incorporate 16th century teachings or modern-age psychiatric evaluation.
The validity is not in the source material. It is in the effectiveness. Something that's "effective for thousand" or "a million" guarantees effectiveness for the next person as much as flipping a coin 99 times and getting all heads guarantees the next flip yields heads - with each new person, you get a new mind, and whether or not that mind is compatible with those beliefs is a toss-up.
"Sorry, just because he personally doesn't have an answer does not mean everyone else does not."
He's not talking about a solution for your problem. He's talking about solving the problem for everyone. You don't have the answer that will work for everyone. You have an answer that works for you. That's it. It might work for others.
Claiming that you have the answer might do real harm to others as well. So be careful with what you say, because the way you are saying it is harmful and discouraged by professionals.
An old saying fits well: the plural of adecdote is not data.
Nothing against people trying things, and if it's not harmfull and may help them, I'm all for it. But you wouldn't convince me with tens of millions of badly selected data points.
So how did you ever learn to walk, then? Every time you tried to move your leg, the fact that you moved forward, would be anecdotal and the data should be thrown out.
At what point would a rational person conclude, "Hmm, maybe their answer may also apply to me?" I at least figured I could say "OK, God, if you might be the Answer, then show me the way..."