Technodad, I do wish you wouldn't just label things you don't agree with 'confirmation bias'. Of course I use arguments that support what I think: so do you, and so, heaven help us, do Brian Cox and Tim Minchin. Eliminating confirmation bias may be an important thing to do in writing a scientific paper, but conversation would hardly exist without it.
Returning to your points 3 and 4.
On 3, the first thing to say, yet again, is that God did not write the Bible. Humans wrote it. It's the record of a sustained attempt to understand God, and to see his purposes working out in human history. But between God and humans there's always a translation problem (to use a metaphor). The prophet Isaiah framed that problem this way: 'my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways'. In the Book of Job, one of Job's friends says, 'for God speaks in one way, and in two, though the people do not perceive it'. The people who wrote the Bible knew that they were trying to discern God's purposes through the imperfect medium of human language, and they stressed the need to listen very carefully to try and understand. That is what prayer is. Simply listening. Sometimes when I feel that it wouldn't hurt God to pick up the phone, I remember that I don't get to tell him where and when and how to speak. He will do it in his own way and time.
Doubtless you will say that is all empty words that don't mean anything. All I can say is that I have done my best to answer your point: but I am never going to say 'hey, yes, God wrote the Bible so why can't he just email us!', because I think that's missing the whole point.
On your point four, it's true that Malaria has been around for millennia. But your view, if you don't mind me saying so, is a very anthropocentric one. God loves the Malaria-carrying mosquitos as much as he loves us; they too are part of his amazing creation (no, I'm not a creationist - evolution is how life forms came to be as they are now). Who am I to demand that God should have wiped out the mosquitos in order to prevent human suffering? Who am I to say, even, that the Malaria parasite does not have a special place in God's heart (metaphorically speaking)? And, as I have said before on these boards, if we make the demand that God steps in to prevent human suffering, where are we to stop: will we have a means-tested misery audit so that only the most serious suffering gets stopped -- but then, is that fair to the sufferers just below the cut-off point? Do we want him to make all suffering, even the most trivial, go away? What would the world be like then? Would it affect how we experience joy?
But you are not really, seriously, entertaining those points, because human suffering is just a convenient stick with which to beat God.