To be clear, given the incomprehensibility of God, there is no difference between belief in God and belief in the beliefs we have about God.
That means when someone rejects your beliefs, it doesn’t mean they think there are no gods, nor does it mean they have another set of beliefs instead of yours.
That means that when you assert something as true of God, you are only asserting your beliefs about God are true, your ideas.
That means when you say you have faith in God, it is not God you have faith in, but that you have faith in your own ideas about God.
That means that when you say a person can be certain something is true about God, you’re abandoning any concept of mystery and faith and instead, you’re telling someone else your ideas about God are unassailable and equivocal; impossible though, given an incomprehensible God.
To be sure, ideas about God are important, but only in the sense that we act on what we believe … and none of these beliefs are otherwise worth having. Too, none of these matter except in the case any one of them causes us to bear fruit should we believe it.
If fruit is the only means by which we can judge and all else are fiats that our ideas about God are true of God, then the story of God, and of Christ for the Christian, needs to open its discourse far wider than it has allowed thus far.