Quite right. But that’s the Christian God – a 2000-year old invention of the same level of naivety as Greek mythology. And there are certainly some aspects of it that are anthropomorphic, just like the earlier mythological gods, because one sees paintings and statues of the Christian God all the time, not to mention being represented as a disembodied deep well-modulated voice coming out of a burning bush.
I notice that Richard Dawkins and many other strong atheists do the same thing: they deny the existence of God by attacking the silly mythological creations of organized religions.
The point is, however, that one can develop more abstract and much more rational, scientifically compatible definitions of God that are not so easily dismissed. Agnostics implicitly acknowledge this. Devoted atheists refer to this as “bullshit”.
“None” assumes that you have a basis on which to define what the evidence must look like.

Like I said - are black holes all God, then?
No, they are not, but for some reason you keep bringing it up. Perhaps you didn’t claim that I ever said it (I didn’t) but you must surely be under the impression that somebody must have said it, else why keep mentioning it?

Beyond the event horizon fits the definition of “unknowable and unknown” to a T.
No, it does not. It’s simply not directly detectable. So are a lot of things. So is any past or future, the state of a place 100 light-years away right now, the presence of dinosaurs, or the state of the Big Bang at 10[sup]-10[/sup] seconds. It doesn’t stop us from building useful models to describe these things and to test our hypotheses about them. Indeed certain information not being directly detectable is deeply entrenched in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and even (arguably) in Schrodinger’s illustrious cat.

Then you’re an atheist. You’re non-theist. You’re a-theist. Like “typical” and “atypical”. Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s the absence of theistic belief. You’re probably a-ghostism and a-leprechaunism and whatever else we haven’t need to invent terms for too.
No, that’s one common application of the prefix “a” and one meaning of “atheist”, but there are others – hence the distinction between weak and strong atheism, or what is sometimes called negative and positive atheism. Strong atheism, simply stated, is the explicit denial of the existence of any God, and it is indeed a belief system, the kind that drives one to write books with titles like The God Delusion. Someone with the belief that you describe should probably call themselves “agnostic” to avoid ambiguity. The term “gnostic” alludes to the possession of knowledge, usually spiritual knowledge like personal knowledge about the existence or non-existence of God, so “agnostic” means that in that respect, “I ain’t got any”. But people use words in different ways, and meanings change over time. I certainly prefer “agnostic”.