If you were truely interested in conversation you'd have not accused me of not answering the question.
I had arguments with both religious and non-religious who are like this - they so desperately want you to agree. They can only work with absolutes.
For example, I came back here after being away two years and added my two cents worth - and in less than 24 hours, Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense.
It's almost religious Atheism.
In my professional life I've been involved in literally of 1000s of ventures, and in none of them, was I ever 100% sure of anything.
In some situations I've been pretty confident and in others I've been sure enough to risk my own life, but never, ever was I 100% sure - simply because I always acknowledged I didn't know everything.
So maybe Vince and all the other 100 percenters are really smart guys - and they know far better that the rest of us - but I 'm a 50 blond woman so I'll stick to the 99.999% sure there is no god crew - cause I don't know for sure and I'm obviously not so smart.
You can most certainly believe in a deity without having your thoughts on the subject sufficiently organized or studied as to comprise a theology. Theology is the study or system of study of deity, not the belief in it. Most children believe in God because their parents told them there was a God. "Mama said" is hardly a theology.
As for certainty in mathematics, are you absolutely certain that 2+2=4? Do you reserve any iota of doubt?
There seems to be a lack of understanding on this thread of logic... that is, of non-contradictory thinking. When an assertion contradicts itself, it is not true and cannot actually exist in reality. For example: is it possible that there exists a pink unicorn that is simultaneously not a pink unicorn?
Your math analogy is nowhere near as convincing or on point as you think it is. I put two stones in a pile. I add two more; there are four. it is proven that two plus two equals four
Not at all comparable to the existence of a being/entity/force defined in such a way that does not lend itself to that kind of proof.
If one can't see the flaws in his analogies, one is not even ready to have this conversation.
Defined as an intelligence or conscious or force or energy or however the hell smug people who say "I dont believe in a white man in a beard in the sky" define their god. Something like that could theoretically exist without being measurable or testable with any current technology we have or will have any time soon. I don't at all believe that it does.