There’s no question what the theist is doing. There’s no issue as to the kind of experiences he thinks are valid.
I’m rather novice, if you could explain what these are to me I would appreciate it.
Sure. The theist is taking first-person reports of unrepeatable, unverifiable feelings and fantasies as evidence good enough to trump well-designed, objectively repeatable scientific experiment.
Not any feelings and fantasies qualify: only those that follow what he takes to be the implicit message in his favorite ancient book. E.g., feelings and fantasies that show Krishna to be real would be simple feelings and fantasies, without merit. But those same feelings and fantasies that showed Jesus to be savior, or Mary’s grace, would be taken seriously.
And by “taken seriously” I mean indefeasible by any conceivable evidence.
I can give more examples, but the problem with such examples is that they are perforce only about a subset of all theists. There are some theists, of course, who do not use the above argument, perhaps because they are intellectual theists who do not take personal experience very seriously.
But this is part of my concern with your points in the OP.