Why do you insist upon consensus to prove existence? That seems nonsensical to me. I know that I myself exist, I have certain attributes and yet it is very possible that people who do not know me could debate about my "attributes." Some may argue he is 6'10" others may say I have naturally green hair, the fact that there may be conflicting or even wrong opinions does not cancel my existence, nor does it cancel out God's.
What’s required of you is to go back and reread the question I answered. I was specifically asked, if a thing existed having the attributes we usually ascribe to god, shouldn’t we call it god? Thus, before answering the question, I highlighted the fact that religious people don’t even agree on the attributes in question. We are therefore stuck on the prerequisite and can’t really answer the question I was asked. In other words, the prerequisite is that we, at the very least, roughly agree on a set of attributes—whatever those may be. Then, if we locate a being fitting that description, we can decide whether or not to call it god.
Ultimately, it isn’t because we don’t agree on those attributes that I state that gods don’t exist. Given the content on your blog, you want a specific god to exist. I definitely don’t need to address a lack of consensus as it concerns Yahweh’s attributes. My reasons for knowing that Yahweh doesn’t exist have nothing to do with a lack of consensus. I have other reasons—reasons you’d be familiar with if you consider other posts on my blog (see here, for a brief example).
By the way, you attempt to defend your point with a false analogy. The attributes Christians want god to have are highly unlike our attributes. We’re not quibbling about his height, eye color, and so on. If we want to point at a flaw in his attributes, we’d point, for example at perfection. Christians claim he’s perfect and yet he demands worship and thus, exhibits deficiency. Christians claim he’s all-loving yet he will punish people eternally for temporal misdeeds.