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

[Angrboda]

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.

I'm not sure that your candle proof is actually consistent, but since formal logic is not my strong suit, I'll leave it at that.

I know I've said similar things in the past, but I have to question what measure of truth we have beyond consistency?

We don't have access to "the things themselves," so it would seem the only measure of truth we have is the consistency between what our mind identifies as sensation, and what our mind identifies as inferences and assumptions. What measure can we apply to these mental images that is stronger than consistency?