The illusion "dupe" is off topic in the premise I mean it as so I will only speak little on it. The Motive is control.
-------------
I am not trying to prove that there is a God I know there is God myself. The thing here is that when we determine if God has been proven we are looking for some type of humanish figure instead of what is.
I mean G.T. if you don't know if I have proven God to you or not then how do you know that I am wrong? You don't, you just assume because its not the way you have been told God was by T.V. and education so your preconceived idea's are the hinderance and flaw in your logic.
I noticed you don't like philosophers.... but logic came from philosophy so logically you shouldn't use logic as means to explain things because logic is a philosophy.
Our minds work like philosophers, it is just how it is. It's easier said then done but when you find determination is where you find God.
A little might that is and has been.
Instead of looking for what it's not look at what it is.
Life. Existance. Conscious.
Control by who?
I don't dislike Philosophers, I am one myself. I just dislike a lot of the fluff that they say which is essentially meaningless. Such as - - discussing the meaning of "Virtue." Purposeless, boring, etc.
I haven't told you that when I say "God" I'm discussing the humanoid God, and so your assumption made the rest of your post fall on deaf ears, sorry about that.
You haven't "proven" God, you're wrong, this I do know. By "God" I mean that in the context of whatever created us; and you said collective consciousness is GODS consciousness; my point is that you're assigning that to God all on your own. In order to be accepted as fact, these premises, you need more. There's no meat behind what you say, it's just more fluff to ponder. It may be un-provable, even, but that only makes it obsolete.
To the illusion point: You're implying a grand scheme for control. You have to assert evidence that isn't circumstancial but concrete. In order to do this, you need players and proof that they're indeed players. If you don't have that, you've nothing but fluff. Once you have players, by name or (object); then you have at least a starting place to delve into your theory.