I don't know if you don't understand or don't want to understand but there is evidence to believe in the things you say above. Yes, I believe things that I cannot know 100% are true, but I believe them because there is evidence for the belief. I have a lack of belief in Bigfoot, aliens Allah because there is insufficient evidence.
The point is...you are simply being selective with what you will and will not believed. You just said it, there are things you cannot know are 100% true, but you believe them. But when presented with evidence of the existence of God, you selectively decide it is not sufficient...even after it has been explained to you. So, you are not convinced. Fine. But then, that too has been explained.
So, you prove what I told you already:
You are incapable of processing the evidence.
That is completely different than it not being sufficient.
Example: someone could claim there is not sufficient evidence for quantum mechanics, simply because it is over their head and therefore they do not accept it, and will not take someone else's word for it, etc.. But things being over your head...is not a defense...it's evidence of individual inability.
That is the message you are parading here. As if to say, "You can't show me anything I can understand!" You may as well go to the math department of a major university and look for evidence of quantum mechanics, but not allow for a mathematical explanation...because you yourself consider it to be insufficient.
I say again:
You are not the measure of what is sufficient evidence.
That is why you have gotten the reception you have. Go figure.