Okay, almost. Things kind fall apart starting with the second-to-last sentence. If I have quantifiable evidence of something's existence, then I won't "believe" it, I will know it or treat it as a given, whatever applies in the current context. By definition, "belief" is reserved for things that are taken on faith; "rigorous proof" need not apply. I don't believe that I am a human, I know I am. I don't believe that I love pizza, I know I do. On the other hand, I believe that my children love me, but unless I can tap their internal dialogue, get a read on their thoughts and feelings, I'll never truly know whether or not they do. (They do. . . . Right?)

We appear to have an ontological conflict.

Knowledge =/= Belief
Belief =/= Faith
Confidence =/= Knowledge

Knowledge = stored data
Belief = actionable hypothesis
Opinion = unjustifiable belief
Faith = unjustified 100% confidence

I believe I am human because I have reasonable, Quantifiable, demonstrable evidence.

This statement (I am human) has verifiable truth value.

I believe I love pizza because I have personal, Qualitative, private, experiential evidence.

This statement (I love pizza) has NO verifiable truth value.

A tendency to conflate Quanta and Qualia is the core of many if not most philosophical quagmires.