Not any more sense than it would make NOT to believe in a God because God can't be proven. Which is in fact the atheist's only argument. "God" is no more likely to exist than not to exist, depending upon our definition of "God". So the lack of evidence is not any more evidence of non-existence than it is evidence of an unknowable or undefinable form of existence.
I'd argue that this isn't an accurate representation of the circumstance. It's not just as likely that a god exists as it is that one doesn't. You're correct in suggesting that the actuality of a god can not be disproved but the merit of the god hypothesis can be examined and determinations can be made as to the probabilities of its accuracy.
Supernatural claims are a dime a dozen and if science were able to examine, test, and retest just one of them and subsequently come to the determination that it was legitimate, the merit of the god hypothesis would benefit tremendously. But the fact remains that not a single purported supernatural events has ever been substantiated even though James Randi and his scientist colleagues have a million dollars waiting for the first person who can present to them a supernatural phenomenon that can be studied, tested and substantiated. Needless to say, the money is still up for grabs.
Since, in the grand scheme of purported supernatural events, there is not a shred of evidence that legitimizes even one of them, the merit of the god hypothesis becomes highly suspect. In other words, if it could be scientifically proven that a certain individual does indeed have the ability to levitate, the probability that the god hypothesis is accurate increases dramatically.
The scale isn't balanced. Evidence in favor for the god hypothesis is limited to the subjective experience of the individual. None of it is scientific. If we're talking about the scientific probability that a god exists, compared to the scientific probability that one doesn't, probability (at this point in time) for existence is hovering right around zero.
But of course this is a false analogy, and is therefor nonsense. A teapot can in no way be taken for a reasonable analogy to "God". A teapot is a simple object representing nothing but itself. "God" is a complex ideal involving the supposition of infinite states and mysteries that a human being could not possibly verify regardless of the power of his telescopes, and which he can barely even comprehend. Russel's analogy is in fact absurdly un-analogous to the point of being disingenuous.
Most teapots are simple objects but this one is highly complex and very special indeed. It is responsible for creating the universe, life itself and represents everything there is, was and ever will be. It has many of the same characteristics as your false god except for the fact that it's not blood thirsty and is actually far more rational. It is true that if you had a telescope powerful enough, you could see it, but there is no way that a mere mortal could truly comprehend its magnificence. Although other teapots can not be thought of as a reasonable analogy to your (false) god, this one can. How is this possible you ask. Well, it just is. And to believe it, all you need to have is a little faith.
I'm glad that someone replied. the OP invited such a debate, but then the poster did not follow up.
I invited your criticisms. No more. No less.