You are basing a good portion of that knowledge you have, and its obvious you are an intelligent person, on things you cannot prove yourself.

Yes, and so does everyone else. Everyone bases much of their knowledge on things they cannot directly prove. And even if you can directly "prove" something, you're putting faith in yourself that your own senses and mental faculties are reliable. Which, of course, is more useful than just giving up and saying that no one can know anything.

Can you prove by yourself that Covid and its vaccine are bioweapons? Can you prove by yourself that the 2020 election was stolen? No, we both arrive at those conclusions based on the evidence and arguments put forward by others. Should we be concerned about placing faith in these people who have brought evidence for these claims? Of course not, unless there was evidence that the vaccines and election were legit (highly unlikely imo).

My issue with the "(insert topic here) is a lie" groups is that they tend to force "mainstream science" to prove a negative. For example, when someone puts forward the reasons that we know the earth is a globe, flat earthers come out and say, "no, we've all been lied to! You're a sheep who blindly follows mainstream science!" The problem with this argument is that it forces the globe-earther to prove a negative; to prove that the evidence for a globe earth isn't fabricated. The fact of the matter is that it's not the job of the globe earther to prove that their evidence hasn't been faked, as they've already done the legwork to openly display their evidence and show that their theory is valid. It's the job of the flat-earther to prove that the evidence for a globe earth is flawed, and that their system better explains available evidence. Something which they have failed to do on both fronts.

The flat-earth example is perhaps extreme, but it illustrates the principle I'm trying to convey. It's not enough to say "gee, you're placing an awful lot of faith in what we think to be true, are you sure we haven't been lied to?." If one puts forward a theory on any subject, it's their job to prove that their theory is valid, not the job of "mainstreamers" to prove that their position can't be wrong.

We ought to think something is true provided that it is the best explanation for currently available evidence. The only reason to change what we think is true is if 1) someone points out that the current paradigm doesn't adequately explain available evidence, or 2) new evidence comes along that contradicts the current paradigm. Concern about "excessive faith" isn't a substantial enough reason by itself to change what we think is true, otherwise it be almost impossible to hold almost anything as true at all.

To go back to the original topic of CERN, its dectractors have not put forth adequate evidence that CERN creates portals or is anything but a particle accelerator. All they have are worries about a Shiva statue and speculation based on a lack of familiarity with how particle physics actually works. Ironically, there is far more evidence that CERN detractors (not you though) are utterly ignorant of particle physics than there is evidence that CERN is nefarious, based solely on my own interactions with said detractors.

I don't expect anyone to be an expert in particle physics (I'm not, just decently well-read about it), but if anyone is going to criticize or speculate about CERN, then they should have some familiarity with the underlying physics, enough to actually make their case. CERN has done the work to show to the world exactly what it is doing and why. It is now time for its detractors to put in a similar amount of work, not just speculate from their keyboards because some quantum mystic told them that portals are a thing. It is then, not a matter of faith that CERN is exactly what it claims to be, but the only reasonable conclusion based on lack of evidence to the contrary.