Say there is a big jar of marbles hidden away in a room.

This analogy only works because it's possible to have a blank spot in your picture of the world regarding the number of marbles in the jar. It's less plausible with God because God plays a large role in understanding the world and how things tie together (if It exists).

So it's plausible to have a "blank spot" about the marbles because they haven't been seen or measured but implausible for god, although it hasn't been seen or measured either reliably to my knowlege, because his existence is important to your "understanding of the world and how things tie together"? I'm sorry but just because something props up your metaphysical framework of reality doesn't make it true. You didn't actually address why the two aren't analogous you just said that the marbles aren't important to understanding the world and god is but that's completely irrelevant to the point of the analogy. If your understanding of the world is backed up by something objective then I want to hear it sincerely but if it's taken as an unfounded assumption then you're no different than the eveners and odders which was the point of the analogy.

There's no real important consequences either way with the marbles for our overall understanding of the world.

That's irrelevant. Something isn't true or not true depending on it's consequences. Its true independent of what worldview it would give us so arguing that a jar of marbles shouldn't be compared to god because the consequences would be different in each case doesn't change the validity or non validity of the analogy.

No I'm not. Have you ever truely not known the answer to something in a yes no situation? When you said "I don't know the answer" were you actively believing one way or another on the question?

I can live my life in ignorance of more yes/no questions - the existence of God has far too many long-reaching consequences to be able to live as if it might or might not be true though.

If you have to lean one way or the other on something in part because you couldn't bare to live without certainty then you aren't being completely intellectually honest because sometimes the appropriate answer to a question is I don't know. That doesn't mean you're wrong about the existence of god but that you have closed yourself off to a potentially valid answer, which should indicate you should heavily consider personal bias. Unless the truth isn't that important to you.

It seems odd that you can't accept not knowing as a valid position in a discussion of reality. If this were a jury case you would be telling me that if I don't accept the accused as innocent then I must think them guilty.

Courtroom analogies aside, I do accept not knowing as a valid position. But I would insist that we have to have a belief one way or another and that if you claim to not know then you admit that this belief is something which is unjustified. And that's okay! We usually have unjustified beliefs.

If I go to a court case about rape and it's a purely a he said/she said with no physical evidence or eye witnesses than the only justified position to take is not guilty. Not because you know that the accused is innocent but that you don't have enough evidence to make a judgement call either way.

If in God's case no reliable evidence has been presented for it's existence it's not justified to say it does exist, in the same sense we wouldn't assume the accused guilt, but it doesn't make sense to say god doesn't exist either because perhaps evidence will be presented in the future that validates its existance. So saying I don't know for sure in the absence of objective evidence is justifiable and it doesn't imply that I actively believe in the nonexistence of god.