God is a Fake

[falcon9]

You both seem to be missing that she indicated the God she knows.  If she knows, then it is real to her.  Since reality is largely perception, and unless you can produce evidence that she is lying, you cannot challenge her on what she knows to be true to herself -- but you are free to have varying views for yourself.

Conversely, you and others making the implicit claim that a "god" exists to "know" are missing the point that claiming to "know" something doesn't mean that the claimaint does "know", (especially sans evidence).

[Abrupt]

You both seem to be missing that she indicated the God she knows.  If she knows, then it is real to her.  Since reality is largely perception, and unless you can produce evidence that she is lying, you cannot challenge her on what she knows to be true to herself -- but you are free to have varying views for yourself.

Conversely, you and others making the implicit claim that a "god" exists to "know" are missing the point that claiming to "know" something doesn't mean that the claimaint does "know", (especially sans evidence).

I am well aware that a person can claim something and be deliberately lying about it.  I am also aware that someone can know something that I can never know.  I don't detect certain colors the same as most people and you can place varying shades of reds or greens side by side and in equal spaced bars on a chart.  What I will see are thinner bars and thicker bars.  While I understand there are certain optics in existence that MIGHT help alter the colors so that I can more easily detect them (also wavelength analysis can reveal differences), I can only say that without them you can never prove to me that there is anything different from what I am able to detect.  Since you cannot prove to me what you see should I then take the presumptuous and foolish position that you do and claim that you are imagining the color or that you are lying?

[falcon9]

I am well aware that a person can claim something and be deliberately lying about it.  I am also aware that someone can know something that I can never know.  I don't detect certain colors the same as most people and you can place varying shades of reds or greens side by side and in equal spaced bars on a chart.  What I will see are thinner bars and thicker bars.  While I understand there are certain optics in existence that MIGHT help alter the colors so that I can more easily detect them (also wavelength analysis can reveal differences), I can only say that without them you can never prove to me that there is anything different from what I am able to detect. 

Unless you are unwilling to accept the evidence of different detected frequency wavelengths which correspond to colors, (whether _you_ can see them visually or not), then this does not parallel someone claiming to 'detect/sense' something which cannot be conclusively verified.  You did, however tacitly acknowledge wavelength analysis as evidence that colors which may not be within someone's visual spectrum do exist.

Since you cannot prove to me what you see should I then take the presumptuous and foolish position that you do and claim that you are imagining the color or that you are lying?

On the contrary, it can be proven that such colors exist, (all along the spectrum, not just in normal visual ranges).  What cannot be similarly proven is that a color exists which is indetectable along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

[Abrupt]

I am well aware that a person can claim something and be deliberately lying about it.  I am also aware that someone can know something that I can never know.  I don't detect certain colors the same as most people and you can place varying shades of reds or greens side by side and in equal spaced bars on a chart.  What I will see are thinner bars and thicker bars.  While I understand there are certain optics in existence that MIGHT help alter the colors so that I can more easily detect them (also wavelength analysis can reveal differences), I can only say that without them you can never prove to me that there is anything different from what I am able to detect. 

Unless you are unwilling to accept the evidence of different detected frequency wavelengths which correspond to colors, (whether _you_ can see them visually or not), then this does not parallel someone claiming to 'detect/sense' something which cannot be conclusively verified.  You did, however tacitly acknowledge wavelength analysis as evidence that colors which may not be within someone's visual spectrum do exist.

Since you cannot prove to me what you see should I then take the presumptuous and foolish position that you do and claim that you are imagining the color or that you are lying?

On the contrary, it can be proven that such colors exist, (all along the spectrum, not just in normal visual ranges).  What cannot be similarly proven is that a color exists which is indetectable along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

There was nothing tacit about my mentioning of wavelength analysis.

When life's difficulties assault me from all angles and I am at the end of my abilities, and yet somehow I manage to press on and even smile and redouble my efforts -- I feel God's hand.  When I see a tree and am washed over by the beauty and complexity and uniqueness of it -- I see God's work.  When I gaze at the stars and appreciate them through the knowledge of my understanding of physics and the universe and I explore the countless possibilities that such a view suggest to me -- I sense a glimmer of the love and generosity and wonder of God.

I don't know what you see or attribute to such things.  Maybe they are a muddy wash of the same thing that the thing next to it is.  Maybe you reduce them to the collection of the particles that make them up and formed in a way that is best suited to survival and longevity of them all as a whole -- I don't know. 

You can show that there is a wavelength between yellow and blue, but you cannot prove that shade of green you see to me even though we both can see the shape.  I can show you God's work in nature all day long but all you will ever see are trees and rivers and mountains, etc.

You have proven my point, albeit indirectly.  We may look at the same things, and where I can see God through his work you do not.

[falcon9]

When life's difficulties assault me from all angles and I am at the end of my abilities, and yet somehow I manage to press on and even smile and redouble my efforts -- I feel God's hand.

That is an unsubstantiated attribution you _choose_ to apply; which doesn't make it an accurate one, (especially given the complete lack of supportive evidence to substantiate such a claim).

When I see a tree and am washed over by the beauty and complexity and uniqueness of it -- I see God's work.  When I gaze at the stars and appreciate them through the knowledge of my understanding of physics and the universe and I explore the countless possibilities that such a view suggest to me -- I sense a glimmer of the love and generosity and wonder of God.

Waxing poetically does not confer accurate attribution of those things to a deity.

I don't know what you see or attribute to such things.  Maybe they are a muddy wash of the same thing that the thing next to it is.  Maybe you reduce them to the collection of the particles that make them up and formed in a way that is best suited to survival and longevity of them all as a whole -- I don't know.

I've already mentioned how I perceive such things, not that you asked.

You can show that there is a wavelength between yellow and blue, but you cannot prove that shade of green you see to me even though we both can see the shape.  I can show you God's work in nature all day long but all you will ever see are trees and rivers and mountains, etc.

"Green" is a specific wavelength, (560-490 nm and 610-670 THz in frequency).  There is nothing in that which is directly attributable to a deity.  The tacit claim that nature is "god's work" cannot be substantiated.

You have proven my point, albeit indirectly.  We may look at the same things, and where I can see God through his work you do not.

On the contrary, I have consistently remarked that such are not conclusive attributions and therefore, I do not falsely attribute such things to deities.

[Abrupt]

When life's difficulties assault me from all angles and I am at the end of my abilities, and yet somehow I manage to press on and even smile and redouble my efforts -- I feel God's hand.

That is an unsubstantiated attribution you _choose_ to apply; which doesn't make it an accurate one, (especially given the complete lack of supportive evidence to substantiate such a claim).

When I see a tree and am washed over by the beauty and complexity and uniqueness of it -- I see God's work.  When I gaze at the stars and appreciate them through the knowledge of my understanding of physics and the universe and I explore the countless possibilities that such a view suggest to me -- I sense a glimmer of the love and generosity and wonder of God.

Waxing poetically does not confer accurate attribution of those things to a deity.

I don't know what you see or attribute to such things.  Maybe they are a muddy wash of the same thing that the thing next to it is.  Maybe you reduce them to the collection of the particles that make them up and formed in a way that is best suited to survival and longevity of them all as a whole -- I don't know.

I've already mentioned how I perceive such things, not that you asked.

You can show that there is a wavelength between yellow and blue, but you cannot prove that shade of green you see to me even though we both can see the shape.  I can show you God's work in nature all day long but all you will ever see are trees and rivers and mountains, etc.

"Green" is a specific wavelength, (560-490 nm and 610-670 THz in frequency).  There is nothing in that which is directly attributable to a deity.  The tacit claim that nature is "god's work" cannot be substantiated.

You have proven my point, albeit indirectly.  We may look at the same things, and where I can see God through his work you do not.

On the contrary, I have consistently remarked that such are not conclusive attributions and therefore, I do not falsely attribute such things to deities.

You don't really understand at all do you?  I am not actively choosing to apply anything any more than you actively choosing to apply anything to those particular colors you see that I cannot.  My supportive evidence, in the example of the tree, is the tree.  This is exactly the same as your supporting evidence in the shade of green being the shade of green.  Realize, the shade of green is not invisible to me, it is just not distinct like it is to you and if you were to paint a house this color I will obviously see it as it isn't hidden from me.  Place a circle of this color on a square colored other shades of green and I will not be able to detect it.

Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.  My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree.  That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work and it isn't something I conjure up to describe an overwhelming of senses.  I do not say to myself "hey that is both complex and natural...it must have been made by God".  It is revealed to me in the nature of what it is and not by any vanity or scrutiny, or acts of attribution by me.  I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.

[falcon9]

You don't really understand at all do you?

Sure I do; I can read and comprehend English as well as applied logic.

I am not actively choosing to apply anything any more than you actively choosing to apply anything to those particular colors you see that I cannot.  My supportive evidence, in the example of the tree, is the tree.

Not quite; you used the tree as a specific example of "god's work", thus attributing the tree's existence to a deity without providing any substantiating evidence of this attrbution.

This is exactly the same as your supporting evidence in the shade of green being the shade of green.

Firstly, I did not provide evidence stating that "the shade of green being the shade of green".  I listed the wavelength frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum which corresponds to the color "green".  Secondly, it is far from being the same thing as attibuting a perception, (or, lack of perception), to a supernatural deity.  You present a false parallel and I completely disagree with it on the basis described.

Realize, the shade of green is not invisible to me, it is just not distinct like it is to you and if you were to paint a house this color I will obviously see it as it isn't hidden from me.  Place a circle of this color on a square colored other shades of green and I will not be able to detect it.

That must make it difficult to discern a green traffic signal.

Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.

The attribution alluded to was that of a hypothetical "spiritual sense" akin to this color perception/imperception example you presented.  That attribution, (to a hypothetical deity), has no substantiation to support it and is a circular argument, (e.g.; "trees exist, god made trees, therefore the existence of trees is attibutable to god" contains two unsubstantiated attibutions).

As far as color-blindness goes, the analogy does not parallel some hypothetical 'spiritual blindness'.  Indeed, there is ample evidence  throughout human history of 'spirituality' blinding reason.

My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree.  That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work ...

To reiterate the cognizant point there; attributing these things to "god's work" constitutes an unsupported claim.

I do not say to myself "hey that is both complex and natural...it must have been made by God".  It is revealed to me in the nature of what it is and not by any vanity or scrutiny, or acts of attribution by me.

It doesn't matter what you tell yourself if your are still attributing such things as being "made by god" without any substantiation for such an attribution beyond the empty claim.  Do you fart and claim "god made it" or, no?

I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.

Since I never suggested nor stated such a strawman idea instead, I'll clarify my position on your haybale.  The only relevant point in regards to not reflecting, (reasoning), about what you perceive is that it lead to an unsupported attribution to "god's work".  Whereas some reasoning about what is perceived leads at least to the provisional conclusion that there's no evidence to substantiate attributing what's perceived to a supernatural deity.

[Abrupt]

You don't really understand at all do you?

Sure I do; I can read and comprehend English as well as applied logic.

Yet you consistently miss what is presented to you as is evident by your pattern of continual misrepresentation of discussions.

Not quite; you used the tree as a specific example of "god's work", thus attributing the tree's existence to a deity without providing any substantiating evidence of this attrbution.

You need to look closer at how I worded that.  I was specific in my manner so as to distinguish the difference.  I cued it well enough that it should have been obvious to most anyone.  I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that, but that is not what I said in my post above.

This is exactly the same as your supporting evidence in the shade of green being the shade of green.

Firstly, I did not provide evidence stating that "the shade of green being the shade of green".  I listed the wavelength frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum which corresponds to the color "green".  Secondly, it is far from being the same thing as attibuting a perception, (or, lack of perception), to a supernatural deity.  You present a false parallel and I completely disagree with it on the basis described.

Disagree all you want.  I have indicated a case where you see something in a way that I cannot, just as I apparently see something in a way that you cannot.  Granted there are devices that allow for detection of the wavelengths of light, but there always were not and in knowing that we see through the illusion of difference you wish to suggest.  Where you suggest supernatural I realize that God is the most natural thing there is.

Realize, the shade of green is not invisible to me, it is just not distinct like it is to you and if you were to paint a house this color I will obviously see it as it isn't hidden from me.  Place a circle of this color on a square colored other shades of green and I will not be able to detect it.

That must make it difficult to discern a green traffic signal.

Well that is why traffic lights are uniform in their positions (least here in the US).  Interestingly it is why I was not allowed as a tank crewman in the military.

Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.

The attribution alluded to was that of a hypothetical "spiritual sense" akin to this color perception/imperception example you presented.  That attribution, (to a hypothetical deity), has no substantiation to support it and is a circular argument, (e.g.; "trees exist, god made trees, therefore the existence of trees is attibutable to god" contains two unsubstantiated attibutions).

As far as color-blindness goes, the analogy does not parallel some hypothetical 'spiritual blindness'.  Indeed, there is ample evidence  throughout human history of 'spirituality' blinding reason.

I don't imply any 'spiritual sense' and I am not sure if you keep using that term to try and ridicule me or what.  Where I have used it earlier in a hypothetical was to get a point across regarding senses and perception and the inability to detect things accordingly.  I don't see dead people or anything like that and have never intended to imply that I do. 

You are again looking at it wrong in your comparison of color-blindness and 'spiritual blindness' (again, really is that what you think I was saying?).  I am speaking of spirituality but not in some mystical way as it seems you perceive it to be.  It is very natural to the point of being the only thing that really does make any sense at all. 

My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree.  That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work ...

To reiterate the cognizant point there; attributing these things to "god's work" constitutes an unsupported claim.

Again, as I stated above I am not attributing them to "God's work", they are revealing themselves to me as "God's work".  There is a very distinct difference in that an I am thinking you don't understand what I mean by it.  I suppose it would sort of (but not quite) be like if I suddenly could see the colors I was missing before, I wouldn't attribute them to anything I would simply see them as they were presented and could only acknowledge them as such.  My acknowledgement of them as themselves is not an overt attribution, but simply my discernment of things I wasn't seeing previously (things that that were not invisible or even hidden, just unnoticed by me).

I do not say to myself "hey that is both complex and natural...it must have been made by God".  It is revealed to me in the nature of what it is and not by any vanity or scrutiny, or acts of attribution by me.

It doesn't matter what you tell yourself if your are still attributing such things as being "made by god" without any substantiation for such an attribution beyond the empty claim.  Do you fart and claim "god made it" or, no?

The hilarious thing is I actually did that this morning.  What can I say, the dog was not around to blame it on.

I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.

Since I never suggested nor stated such a strawman idea instead, I'll clarify my position on your haybale.  The only relevant point in regards to not reflecting, (reasoning), about what you perceive is that it lead to an unsupported attribution to "god's work".  Whereas some reasoning about what is perceived leads at least to the provisional conclusion that there's no evidence to substantiate attributing what's perceived to a supernatural deity.

Again even in your denial here you again assert that I am attributing when I am not.  You are quite mistaken here and this is perhaps due to your limitations on how you perceive things or my limitations on explaining that what I take in is recognized by my perceptions as from God in much the same way as your viewing green is recognized by your perceptions as green.  I am not processing along the lines of "this is wonderful and unexplained and thus must be of God" and I am similarly not thinking "this is a tree and thus is from God ipso facto".  I see the tree and I also see God's work within and without the tree -- but I didn't always I used to only see the tree and then it was quite boring and plain and uninspiring (except for maybe during autumn).

[falcon9]

Yet you consistently miss what is presented to you as is evident by your pattern of continual misrepresentation of discussions.

Merely claiming that there is an "evident" "pattern of continual misrepresentation of discussions" isn't going to go unchallenged, (as you no doubt know by now).  You claimed it, now substantiate your claim or, it must be concluded that your accusation itself misrepresents the pattern of our discussions.

You need to look closer at how I worded that.  I was specific in my manner so as to distinguish the difference.  I cued it well enough that it should have been obvious to most anyone.  I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that, but that is not what I said in my post above.

Then there was no significant difference; you admit to attributing the tree's existence to "god" and yet, still provide no substantiating evidence to support that attribution.

I have indicated a case where you see something in a way that I cannot, just as I apparently see something in a way that you cannot.  Granted there are devices that allow for detection of the wavelengths of light, but there always were not and in knowing that we see through the illusion of difference you wish to suggest.

It isn't an "illusion of difference", since mechanical devices cannot detect "illusions" in the same way the human eye/brain can be spoofed.

Where you suggest supernatural I realize that God is the most natural thing there is.

You can claim to "realize" whatever wished however, such a 'realization' is not an a priori fact.  Further, that 'realization' is another way of presenting an unsupported claim since there is no evidential support for a 'realized' claim that "god is the most natural thing there is.  
Conversely, a deity is defined as any supernatural being, (not at my 'suggestion' but, a thesaurus').

 

Well that is why traffic lights are uniform in their positions (least here in the US).  Interestingly it is why I was not allowed as a tank crewman in the military.

Why, aren't tanks allowed to advance with or without a greenlight signal?

Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.

The attribution alluded to was that of a hypothetical "spiritual sense" akin to this color perception/imperception example you presented.  That attribution, (to a hypothetical deity), has no substantiation to support it and is a circular argument, (e.g.; "trees exist, god made trees, therefore the existence of trees is attibutable to god" contains two unsubstantiated attibutions).

As far as color-blindness goes, the analogy does not parallel some hypothetical 'spiritual blindness'.  Indeed, there is ample evidence throughout human history of 'spirituality' blinding reason.

I don't imply any 'spiritual sense' and I am not sure if you keep using that term to try and ridicule me or what.  Where I have used it earlier in a hypothetical was to get a point across regarding senses and perception and the inability to detect things accordingly.

What you wrote attempted to conflate a hypothetical "spiritual sense" with an actual ability to "sense" that which those who do not possess it cannot by contrasting an inability, (color blindness), with it's logical parallel, ('spiritual blindness'). If this was not your intention, the reasoning is asysemetric and an inconsistent sophistry.

You are again looking at it wrong in your comparison of color-blindness and 'spiritual blindness' (again, really is that what you think I was saying?).

See the remarks above your question.

I am speaking of spirituality but not in some mystical way as it seems you perceive it to be.  It is very natural to the point of being the only thing that really does make any sense at all.

It's "mystical" by default since no substantive evidence has been provided to support such 'spiritual' attributions as you've made/claimed.  Further claims that it is "very natural" remain unsupported as well.  Indeed, using one unsubstantaited claim to support another constitutes a mystically insubstantive syllogism.

My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree.  That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work ...

To reiterate the cognizant point there; attributing these things to "god's work" constitutes an unsupported claim.

Again, as I stated above I am not attributing them to "God's work", they are revealing themselves to me as "God's work".  There is a very distinct difference in that an I am thinking you don't understand what I mean by it.

No, the substitution of "revealing" for 'attributing' makes no contextual difference at all.  The 'revealation' remains an unsupported claim because it lacks evidence whether it's called a "revealing" or an revealed attribution.  Summarily, you previously stated that "I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that ..." earlier in _this_ posted reply.  Now, you are trying to split some imagined hair  between 'attributing' and "revealing"?  Really?

I suppose it would sort of (but not quite) be like if I suddenly could see the colors I was missing before, I wouldn't attribute them to anything I would simply see them as they were presented and could only acknowledge them as such.  My acknowledgement of them as themselves is not an overt attribution, but simply my discernment of things I wasn't seeing previously (things that that were not invisible or even hidden, just unnoticed by me).

Such a claimed "discernment" remains an unsupported attribution, no matter how you try to spin it.  You stated that, "I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that ..." and that's a direct attribution.  Whether or not you can come up with similar 'euphemisms' for not really attributing such as "discerning", "reveal", "realize" your admission to the unsupported attribution remains.



It doesn't matter what you tell yourself if your are still attributing such things as being "made by god" without any substantiation for such an attribution beyond the empty claim.  Do you fart and claim "god made it" or, no? [/quote]

The hilarious thing is I actually did that this morning.  What can I say, the dog was not around to blame it on.

That works as well as blaming it on grandma, (and if she's passed away, her barking spider is a sign from beyond the grave?).

I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.

Since I never suggested nor stated such a strawman idea instead, I'll clarify my position on your haybale.  The only relevant point in regards to not reflecting, (reasoning), about what you perceive is that it lead to an unsupported attribution to "god's work".  Whereas some reasoning about what is perceived leads at least to the provisional conclusion that there's no evidence to substantiate attributing what's perceived to a supernatural deity.

Again even in your denial here you again assert that I am attributing when I am not.

It isn't my denial; it's your denial of your own quoted words, ""I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that ...".  Further claiming some undefined "limitations" on my part, (no doubt in some attempt to discredit the reasoning used to determine what is an attribution and what constitutes some sort of 'different' realization/discernment/revelation), is disingenuous.

You are quite mistaken here and this is perhaps due to your limitations on how you perceive things or my limitations on explaining that what I take in is recognized by my perceptions as from God in much the same way as your viewing green is recognized by your perceptions as green.

There is no rational comparison between unsubtantiated "perceptions as from god" and substantiated perceptions of physical wavelength frequencies.  Specifically, the former is claimed by hearsay and lacks supportive evidence, while the latter is supported by physical objective evidence.

I am not processing along the lines of "this is wonderful and unexplained and thus must be of God" and I am similarly not thinking "this is a tree and thus is from God ipso facto".

As previously indicated, the only significance of your not using any reasoning process to inaccurately attribute the tree to "god" is that it provides some substantiation for a prior contention that 'faith' is not derived from a reasoning process.  Regardless, it remains an unsupported attribution.

I see the tree and I also see God's work within and without the tree -- but I didn't always I used to only see the tree and then it was quite boring and plain and uninspiring (except for maybe during autumn).

Do you 'see' that claiming to "see God's work within and without the tree" is an attribution without substantiation or, must we circle 'round and 'round the tree like unto some pagan ritual of yore?

[acarswell]

I believe God is real. I believe that just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doenst exist.  How can you look around at the beauty in the world and not realize that God exist.

[abdyer2001]

I believe God is real. I believe that just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doenst exist.  How can you look around at the beauty in the world and not realize that God exist (posted by :acarswell)

Because just because you believe something doesnt mean it does exist either.

[abdyer2001]

check this out under the news section  on yahoo:  New find sheds light on ancient site in Jerusalem  The man usually credited with building the compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary is Herod, a Jewish ruler who died in 4 B.C. Herod's monumental compound replaced and expanded a much older Jewish temple complex on the same site.

But archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority now say diggers have found coins underneath the massive foundation stones of the compound's Western Wall that were stamped by a Roman proconsul 20 years after Herod's death. That indicates that Herod did not build the wall — part of which is venerated as Judaism's holiest prayer site — and that construction was not close to being complete when he died.

this is not directly related but shows one example of science disproving some things..or at least casting more doubt

[falcon9]

I believe God is real. I believe that just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doenst exist.  How can you look around at the beauty in the world and not realize that God exist.

A belief doesn't confer the reality of substantive existence.  It isn't a matter of not seeing something, (such devices as microscopes to telescopes allow us to extend our sight); it's a matter of verifiable detection.  As to "beauty"; there is no attributable connection to a deital source for that concept, (an aesthetic conception).

Because just because you believe something doesnt mean it does exist either.

Some theorize about hypothetical 'egregores', (thoughtforms which are posited as an aggregate of a group of people's beliefs).  Although not all such egregores are considered to be metaphysical in nature, (thoughtforms such as 'memes' and 'money', for instance), some supposedly have a religious content.  Interestingly, if "gods/goddesses" are egregores, they are human creations by definition, (rather than the other way around).
If these are not egregores, then they do not require 'belief' to sustain them yet, that's all they've got to support claims of their existence, ('faith').
Any claims attributing aspects of, (or, all of), the universe to various "gods" remain speculative and unsubstantiated.

[tzs]

Yes.....yes he is.....

[hustle_like_a_lady]

I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.

What God do you believe in?

To each their own opinion. I'm guessing by the way this is stated you believe in a higher entity, right? I believe in higher power and God, but not fully sure if God created by biblical/Christian religion is fully factual. Gotta figure Something makes this complex world stable! Otherwise we'd all be in chaotic confusion and fear.