"Name one thing in the known universe outside religion that nearly everyone believes despite contrary evidence."
Is this part of an argument for the existence of your deity? I doubt that you would be arguing for the existence of the deities that these other people who don't believe in yours worship. If you're going to use numbers in support of your belief, they only support theism, not your brand of it.
Have I ever told you that I used to be a messianic Jew? My parent were Jewish atheists. It wasn't until about age 7, when my mother married a rabbinical school dropout that Judaism came into our home, complete with kosher dishes, seders. menorahs, synagogue on the High Holy Holidays, and eventually a bar mitzvah for me.
But I didn't believe in God, nor did I identify with Judaism.
Several years later, in the military, I found Jesus. I know how special you are in your Christian congregation, where you are considered a completed Jew.
How can you be right if you contradict everyone else?
By them being wrong.
The Bible has explanations of why many people refuse to trust Jesus for salvation.
But not the commonest reason they don't believe.
most people when encountering moral challenges/trials/tests speak of/appeal to/think of God.
There's a better way to approach moral theory, rational ethics. One begins with a moral intuition and uses reason to decide how to effect that vision. If you like near universality, you find that in the moral intuition of humanists, namely, utilitarianism for societies, and the Golden rule for individuals. The rest follows perforce.
It IS hard to argue against skeptics since I know the Bible far better than they do or even attempt to do
So you say, but I don't accept the interpretations of the Bible from believers, which mostly disagree with mine. That's because the believer looks at the Bible from the perspective that it is true and its god good. That's a faith based confirmation bias, and it distorts understanding by making conclusions that aren't consistent with those faith-based beliefs off limits. Critical thinkers will assess what they read there dispassionately, open-mindedly, and according to the rules of reason wherever that takes them, which is not where the believer goes.
You surely believe that Old Testament messianic prophecy and the story of Jesus in the New Testament are consistent and prophetic, but no non-believer would come to that conclusion. So who should one ask about that, a believer or an unbeliever? Who will give a disinterested reply consistent with the facts, and who will just give dogma and rationalization why this all represents prophecy fulfilled whatever it says?