No, I believe that God is a fictional character because there is NO way to test the existence of such. Seeing and feeling are limited human abilities. But the very nature of the supernatural means it *cannot* be tested by *any* means. And that means, as far as i can see, that it is no different than being imaginary.
I'm not sure I buy the whole "untestable=not real" concept.
I also don't think that you can't test the supernatural. James Randi has made a pretty good career out of doing just that.
I can go further, though. A color blind person can be convinced of the existence of colors by noticing that those who claim to see colors give consistent reports about the color of things. They can also note that the reports of color are correlated with things like the measured wavelength of the light involved.
On the other hand, the reports about deities vary widely across different cultures and even different subcultures. So, unlike color to a blind person, there is NO consistency to be noted when it comes to questions about deities. And that is convincing evidence that *all* of the stories are fictional, as opposed to being real.
I've seen a lot of consistency between my work and other spirit workers and mystics, so I just don't know what you're talking about here.
I assume you're talking about exoteric religion, which despite being mainstream I'll admit that I'm often kind of under a rock about. I could see how you would think Hinduism and Christianity have no consistency between each other if you're comparing the Westboro Baptist Church to the Hare Krishna movement, but to me that's like trying to compare different models of the atom. Sure, they don't outwardly appear consistent, but that doesn't mean they aren't.
Even if they were, though, what about the whole concept of a "one true religion?" That's completely compatible with the idea that there's no consistency between religions, without all of them being fictional.
I'm not even going to argue that any religious or supernatural phenomenon exist, I'm just not sure I follow the logic of your disproof for it.