I see four possibilities when it comes to formulating a philosophy (apart from talking probabilities here).

A philosophy

1. claims there is a god, or
2. claims there is no god, or
3. claims that it can not be known whether there is a god or not, or
4. does not claim anything about god.

The 4th one seems to lack something important.

The 3rd one is the traditional agnosticism, and I have shown that it is the same as the 2nd one.

The 2nd one can hardly be a consistent philosophy (you have to be god to know there is no god, and that is self-contradicting).

So, what remains is the 1st one, to claim there is a god, and that, it seems to me, does not have to lead to any inconsistencies.