No. If there is some being out there that qualifies as a diety, it's obviously not any of the gods from mainstream religions.
The evidence just plain isn't there. Secular arguments against a theistic god are too persuasive, religious apologists still can't talk their way around the problem of evil, and the beastly idiocy of the dime a dozen anti-science "thinkers" who are taken seriously in religious circles says an awful lot about the religious majority's standard of evidence and how much they really care about gaining knowledge and discovering truth, versus reinforcing the beliefs that make them comfortable.
People's fear of death, combined with our bullheaded tendency to double down on our dumbest biases as long as they point us toward the answer we want to hear, is extremely important to acknowledge in matters of religious belief.
I think the history of religion, the common tactics of religious apologists, and the goalpost moving involved in relying on God as a catch-all explanation for the ever-shrinking category of scientific mysteries paints a clear picture of a species struggling against its animal nature and grasping for meaning and comfort and security, and inventing a big magical daddy to make life make sense, and make life fair, and listen to their wishes, and save them from dying, and let them hold on to the people and things they love even though all of existence is defined by change and impermanence.
Maybe I'd have a different view if the majority of well informed scientists could make a good case for god without relying on faith and fallacies. What really, really gets me about believers is the way so many of them dismiss science and rational thought. These areas of knowledge are so fascinating and vital, but people can't be bothered to learn.
