What we need is to define God. It is possible that I could define God in a manner which makes (vii) and (viii) factual. For example if I define God as David Attenborough, then sentence (vii) can be independently checked and found true making (viii) false. However this kind of definition is not what we usually mean by God. Rather by God we mean something which in classical theism is transcendent. Everything else which exists does so imminently; that is they exist within the universe and we can interact with them. God, as defined in classical theism, exists transcendentally, and so is neither within the universe, nor can be interacted with in the manner of other objects.
This means that God, so defined, is not merely beyond independent checking on practical grounds (like our teapot orbiting Pluto); but in fact necessarily beyond checking. This is worth re-iterating. As defined in the manner of classical theism, God's existence is, by definition, impossible to independently check.
This of course is the crux of your argument, but which carries with it the realisation that if the god's existence, or not, is NOT a matter of fact, then god's existence (or not) must also become a matter of indifference.
If god's existence is not a matter of fact, then any assertion that follows from that fact - what god desires, what god demands, issues of salavation, and so forth - similarly become not matters of fact, but merely poetic expressions of the world the speaker would wish to live in.
Further, if god's existence is an unproveable poetic viewpoint, rather than a fact, then similarly all statements regarding any direct intervention of that god in the world become poetic rather than factual. Ergo, miracles have no factual existence, prayers cannot be said to be answered, and so on.
Finally, if all that god's existence is, is a poetic vocalisation of the speaker's desired worldview, then there are no grounds for that vocalisation to have any standing in the real and factual world. Gay marriage, for example - that's a factual yes/no question that people
can have an opinion on, but for which there is no basis other than their desires. The phrase "I oppose GM because my god hates it" should be given no more credence that "I oppose GM because I think anger is red" (to use your example).
I'd be more than happy if all theists accepted the existence of god as a poetic statement with no factual basis. Trouble is, I've yet to meet any beleiver who actually holds to that definition, with all the ramifications.