First, you are appealing to something quite similar to the genetic fallacy; dismissing a claim or belief based either on its origin or its diversity of origins.

An argument suggesting that the existence of many differing beliefs about gods undermines the possibility of any single god being real is ultimately fallacious.

But more to the point, one could easily argue that having such a diversity about the existence of something shows that there is something universally true about what is believed.

Consider that across cultures and societies, there are vastly differing views on what is considered morally right or wrong. This shared foundation suggests that morality as a concept is a real and universally experienced phenomenon, despite the specifics being different.

To think about this from a scientific/mechanistic standpoint, consider convergent evolution, where organisms from vastly different evolutionary backgrounds develop similar solutions to environmental challenges. Despite differing details (feathers, membranes, etc.), the recurrence of a feature suggests a universal truth (e.g. flight is a viable and beneficial strategy for survival in certain conditions).

In physics, we see this in terms of symmetry and universality, where natural laws, such as those governing motion, thermodynamics, etc. often manifest differently under varying conditions but remain fundamentally invariant.

Another example is human cognitive processes recognizing patterns across diverse stimuli. And so on.

What we see in nature, is that having a diversity among the instances points to something universally true.

This does not mean there is definitely a God or Gods, merely that the "Which god?” argument is not as strong (sound or cogent) as many think.