Believing or disbelieving anything that cannot be conclusively proven always requires some degree of belief.
We could say that there is an even chance of either the existence or nonexistence of any given proposition, but that is a poor idea, because we do know some facts.
Take the pegasus, or flying horse. We can calculate the minimum possible weight of a creature that would appear to be a winged horse, and we know enpough about birds and aeronautics to determine the minimum possible wingspan to allow for a pegasus to fly,as well as the minimum wingspan a pegasus would have to have to fly with a human passenger, and it turns out that the wings would have to be far larger than any likely animal could have, unless the pegasus were made of something far, far lighter than horseflesh. It is pretty easy to conclude that a pegasus is an impossible, or at least a very improbable creature.
We can conclude the same thing about flying monkeys or flying humans, or angels, at least as popularly described. Of course, if God can do anything, then He can create angels that can fly without wings.
I have read that half of all Americans believe that they are watched over by a guardian angel, so I imagine that even more believe in angels as actually real. Apparently logic does not apply to this belief. Of course, aeronautical engineering is not taught as part of any HS curriculum, and I deem the probability that the mechanical impossibility of humanoid angels is rarely discussed in aeronautical engineering.
The number of facts about the physical universe is as infinite as the universe itself, so we have to depend on logical speculation or perhaps faith to deal with life on this planet.
For our court system in the US, we presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Science generally assumes that an entity is assumed to not exist until some evidence of its existence is discovered.
Religion has always assumed that sacred texts (depending on the religion) are infallible, and if we find proof that some statement in a holy text is incorrect, then it is because our perception is erroneous.
For example, the RC Church declared that Adam and Eve making a poor culinary choice due to listening to a talking reptile condemned the Earth to the imperfections that it has. Before their sin, the Earth was perfect. It was assumed that the rest of the Universe was God's realm, and in that part of Creation, everything was still perfect. Therefore, the moon and Sun must be perfect spheres, and their orbits must be perfectly circular. Galileo saw sunspots and calculated that orbits were not circular. This really hacked off the Church, since it went counter to divine theology, as had been calculated by St. Thomas Aquinas, and they censured Galileo and forced him to retract his heresy.
But it turns out that although St Thomas was perfectly logical in his theological assumptions, he was dead wrong about the planets: the Sun does have sunspots (which are clearly imperfections as defined by Aquinas), the heavenly bodies are not perfect spheres, and their orbits are not perfectly circular, all of which contradict Aquinas' conclusions.
The Universe is only as balanced as it has to be to exist. It is NOT perfect, and has never been perfect.
Based on these facts, I conclude that the description of the universe as described in the Bible, is erroneous. Therefore, although there might be a God, it is also unlikely that He is identical to the entity described in several ways, some of them contradictory, in the Bible.
I have faith in the logic I use to arrive at these conclusions.
