The problem with arguments like yours, which are not unique but repeated consistently by theists trying to discount arguments by atheists, is that you mistake “knowing” with absolute certainty.

Ben Cain makes the rebuttal better than I do. But absolute certainty is not necessary to know something is true. I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning, because of the evidence of thousands of years of observing it rise every morning, supported by the scientific evidence that we are a planet revolving around it and that our planet rotates. It is not 100% certain that it will rise, maybe it will blow up, maybe it will die down, maybe we will blow up. But I am confident enough to know it will rise. Its the same argument as with the orbiting teapot.

Theists and others who argue your point don’t, or won’t, understand this point, and keep saying that because we can’t prove with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist, that means either: 1) agnostics are right and atheists are wrong, or 2) because we are only human and can’t “know the unknowable” then God must exist. This is a specious argument that stretches the boundaries of logical reasoning beyond their limit.