I think all your arguments would be valid if my own arguments met one condition: that I was asserting belief in God as a factual claim. I wasn't.
It's not your conclusion that I have a problem with so much as your fallicious rationale. In making your conclusion, you've posited something which no one could possibly disprove--not because it's a great argument, but because it's unfalsible. This is why the pink unicorns come in. They, like your god (and indeed an infinite number of things), require no evidence and transcend our capicity to percieve them. Thus, the process by which you've came to believe in your god is the same for invisible pink unicorns.