Well, in the perception of certain individuals, 'God' does exist, even though they disagree amongst themselves on their precise perception of 'His' qualities, attributes and requirements. Nevertheless, it is true to say that for some,'God' exists in their perceptions, that is to say subjectively, even though there is little consensus regarding the qualities that 'He' is credited with. What it is not true to say, however, is that the subjective existence of 'God' means that 'He' also exists objectively and apart from their subjective perceptions. Despite that caveat, those who subjectively perceive 'God' to exist DO claim that 'He' exists objectively, even though no one over the past couple of millennia or so that these claims have been uttered has ever been able to produce any corroborative credible evidence whatsoever to substantiated the objective existence of 'God'.
Thus, 'God' exists only subjectively and, consequently, 'He' is absolutely indistinguishable qualitatively from Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Cthulhu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any of the other 199,367,401 or so fanciful inventions that the human mind has subjectively credited with existence over the past couple of millennia. Furthermore, given that it was only over the past couple of millennia or so that homo sapiens first perceived subjectively of 'God', and that 'He' was unknown and unheard of during the previous 250,000 years from homo sapiens' first appearance, not to mention 'His' complete non-existence during the couple of million years previous to that when the genus homo first appeared, even 'His' subjective existence is insignificantly recent.
Interestingly enough, the problems caused by entities existing only subjectively and not objectively was recognised in the 18th century by theologian George Berkeley, who some also considered to have been an empiricist philosopher. Berkeley maintained that we cannot know if entities exist objectively, but instead one can know only that they are perceived in one's mind, that is, we can only know directly that entities exist subjectively. To counter the objection that the subjective existence of entities does not prove their objective existence, and to rebut the objection that entities would cease to exist if there was not a mind perceiving them, that is that they must have an objective existence outside one's mind if they are real phenomena, Berkeley argued that there is always a mind perceiving them, and that mind is none other than that of 'God'. Furthermore, Berkeley opined that it was 'God' who' actually causes the subjective perception of an entity to appear in one's mind in the first place. Strange, is it not, that Berkeley did not appear to consider the logical conclusion: that 'God' only exists objectively if there was yet a greater mind subjectively perceiving 'Him'. But then that would have been seen as an admission that if Berkeley's argument had succeeded in proving his 'God's' objective existence (which it had not), then his 'God' was a mere minor objective 'deity' at best in the panoply of so-called 'deities', and consequently 'He' did not merit the claims that Berkeley and others had made for 'Him' being the supreme omniscient, all-powerful one.
So, we are now in a position to answer the question in the title with a resounding 'NO'. 'God' does not exist objectively, and those who maintain otherwise have completely failed to provide any credible empiric evidence to support their psychopatholigical 'belief' in this entity that they claim to worship and revere. Indeed, there is statistically as much probability of proving that any one of the myriad of other so-called 'gods' and mythical creatures that mankind has invented exists, objectively, as this thing which the dysfunctional and manipulative amongst us refer to as 'God'.