All my truth is based on observation and experience. That's objective enough for me.
All your truth is based on
your observations and experience? That sounds incredibly limiting to me.
Also, by definition, that makes your truth
purely subjective. If you claim that is "objective enough" for you, then you're telling us that "not objective at all" is objective enough for you. Or, in other words, forget objectivity; just go with whatever
feels right to you, personally.
Not a great method for getting to what's true, if you ask me (and that's an understatement).
I also accept a lot of science, but not all.
So what? Is any of the stuff you reject important to the current discussion, or to the general question of what is true? If so, maybe you should talk about the specifics.
True life after death is highly probable considering my own expierience.
It has a probability of 100%, based solely on your own experience, as far as I can tell.
But I'm guessing that your experiences don't include being dead, which means that there's actually nothing in your direct experience to justify your confidence that "true" life after death is even possible, let alone highly probable.
Moreover, as I have already mentioned, the single data point of your own existence is a really lousy way to start trying to estimate probabilities. What you need for a reliable probability estimate is a lot of independent data points.
Since
nobody can confirm that they have experienced life after death, the probability that life after death is real is going to come out at a very low number, if you do your data analysis properly. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no life after death, because even highly improbable things can happen from time to time.
The point is: there's no good objective evidence to support the conclusion that life after death happens, and the subjective evidence we get from people is similarly unpersuasive to those who are willing to take an unbiased look at the data.