Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Esquilax]

See that's a huge weakness you have. You refuse to entertain logic which cannot be proven via external reality directly.

Explain to me how one would prove something exists without external reality.

Directly, because the logic is consistent with all other logic, that ties with reality. The only difference with the God belief, for example, is that a primary constraint is that it is atemporal. So you must apply everything but that. You refuse to accept the logical constraint, and end up being illogical because of that very fact.

There are plenty of things that are logically consistent without existing: stars exist, stars exude light, candles also exude light, therefore stars are candles. This is a logically consistent, all the premises are true, and yet the conclusion is wrong. Only without evidence, you'd have no way to disprove this; if you're just going on logical consistency, you'd have to accept that as just as true as your god claim.

Equally, there are numerous other logically consistent gods with mutually exclusive properties; if you're just using logical consistency as a measure of truth, then they would all be "true," and therefore no longer logically consistent.

Consider this: I could propose another atemporal being that carries all the same properties of your god, plus the ability to erase your god from existence. That's logically consistent: does it make it true?

Or, hell: I don't want to get into a dumb argument about whether or not that's logically consistent, so say I just proposed that a second, identical god also exists. Does that god now exist because I've proposed it?