Some argue,

#Evidence is that which you can be aware of.

#To say that you lack belief in God for there is no evidence is assuming God can be something you can be aware of.

THEREFORE You need to show how you can be aware of God and know if you are aware of him that it is him before you can say that you lack belief.

So you are calling God an illusion and then saying you have beliefs

Now you can have evidence for some of the things that a God might do.  You don't need to be aware of a divine designer before you can recognise design.

The problem is that you are implying you believe you can detect God and you are not showing how so you are implying its true that you can detic without showing how it is true in the first place. You are arguing in circles.

Some say that if this is the case then all atheism falls. It falls because its starting point is that there is no reason to believe in God.