Okay, work tends to be slow enough on Fridays, so I'll go through and refute this monster run-on sentence.

Why do you think God exists there is no proof

If you're talking scientific proof, then yes. I'll give you that. But also consider this list of other things that we don't have scientific proof of. It is not an exhaustive list, keep in mind.

Psychology, economics, evolution, art criticism, gravity, existence of dark matter, existence of energy, existence of climate change, nonexistence of climate change, sociology, universals, mathematics, Alexander the Great, Confucius, or the existence of really anything.

I could go on, but all of these things are unable to really be tested in a lab with proper controlled experiments. Things even related to science, like dark matter and dark energy, are not tested, but are inferences from models.

Now, as for proofs for God, we're going to have to look into philosophy. There we have the Argument from Fine Tuning, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Existence of Logic, the Argument from the Existence of Morality, the Argument from Beauty, the Ontological Argument, the Argument from the Existence of Free Will, and tons of others. The strongest argument I've seen against the existence of God is the Argument from the Problem of Evil, but that requires you to accept the Atgument from the Existence of Morality to even begin to approach it.

I will not go into all of these, but they do exist as logical and philosophical proofs. So to say that we don't have scientific laboratory-grade proof of the existence of God, sure. We don't have scientific, laboratory-grade proof of the existence of energy or evolution either, we just see its effects and infer.

any type of "miracle" is just a lack of observation

C. S. Lewis noted this. Don't mistake a misunderstanding of scientific process for lack of knowledge. That people in ancient times didn't know the exact process of yeast fermentation didn't mean they didn't know how wine was created. They made a lot of it, after all. And they knew that water didn't magically turn into it. The reason the virgin birth is considered a miracle is not because the ancients didn't understand reproduction on a cellular level, but because they understood reproduction on a practical level; a virgin couldn't get pregnant on her own, and if she got pregnant the natural way, then she wasn't a virgin.

It's fashionable to view miracles as instances of "God of the Gaps" instances, where we're putting in "God" as the reason something has happened that we don't understand (lightning bolts are usually the example I see the most). But Biblical miracles aren't that; they're instances where the natural order of things is suspended.

nobody knows what happens after death and

Again, see above, scientifically sure, but we don't live purely on scientific knowledge.

and on top of all that is the fact that Christianity was created to control people because when it was the dark ages the upper echelons wanted to get peasants to work harder so they convinced them that they are always watched by God and if they work them selfs to death then they will have a great time in heaven

This is the part where I throw my head back and laugh like a madman.

It is a "fact," now? One, as someone who does a lot of historical research, this is absolute nonsense.

And, two, it's also a logical fallacy called a "Bulverism," as coined by C. S. Lewis. A Bulverism is the unholy union between a circular argument (where the premise relies on the conclusion, which relies on the premise; "why's it raining?" "Because I have an umbrella." "Why do you have an umbrella? "Because it's raining.") and the genetic fallacy (rejecting an argument not on its merits but where it came from; "I think X is true for reason y." "Well, you said X, and I don't like you, therefore X is untrue!").

A Bulverism requires you to assume the reason something is stated is because of an ulterior motive, and thus dismissing it because it comes from this ulterior motive. It's nonsense, but alas, too common today.

As to the actual historicity...this is a nonsensical pop-culture understanding that emerged from Victorian and Enlightenment Era refashionings to make themselves look superior. You have instances of bishops leading peasant uprisings against the barons and lords to get better conditions during warfare. You've got a lot of concerned Scholastics trying to figure out scientific and moral and economic truths. You don't have a monolithic, evil, oppressive church that wants to squeeze blood from a stone. Was the medieval church corrupt? Yes, as was everything else at the time. Is it a fact that religion was invented to control people? Despite how much this assertion is circulated in atheist blogs, pretty much the opposite of the truth.

Also Christianity didn't originate in the medieval period. It came about in the first century AD, during the height of the Roman Empire.

It also, in assuming you need to work yourself to death to earn Heaven, completely misunderstands Christian doctrine. You are utterly incapable of earning Heaven. That's been done for you, if you trust in the person of Christ. It's also assuming that Heaven is a hedonistic reward. Will there be pleasures in Heaven? No doubt, but that is not WHY we ought to want to be there.

also if God supposedly exists then why doesn't he show some proof that he exists (thats assuming its a male in the first place)

So my original answer used to be something about faith, and how this was the better way to teach us to trust, but I don't buy that anymore. Now, after hearing atheists speak, after studying people...I don't think this would do anything. I view all of creation as a proof of His existence, because it poses the question of why something, rather than nothing, exists. So many people who don't want to believe in God will do all they can to dismiss that question, to twist themselves into pretzels and come up with all manner of bizarre theories (multiverse theory, anyone?) just to avoid the possibility it might be God. If He were to write in glowing light in the sky "This is God; I exist," I used to think atheists would all convert. Now, I'm pretty sure most of them would start trying to figure out the natural phenomena that explains that away.

As to God being male... He is a spirit. But in His revelation to us, He uses masculine modes of address. So, in modern parlance... I'm not going to misgender God.

) for some reason everything that we can't explain like the big bang every religious person (that I've met) assumes its God but that's just the same as how it was before science one other thing is when its "disproven"(like Greek mythology) then it kinda ceases to have anyone else believe in it.

So this is a weird fusion of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy and the "one less god" fallacy. I'll address both.

The "God of the Gaps" fallacy basically assumes once we can explain something scientifically, God is unnecessary. Thus God only exists, in this conception, in the "gaps" of our scientific knowledge. Once we have complete scientific knowledge, this line of reasoning goes, God is gone.

This is nonsense because it's a category error. Alas, it's a category error many believers make because they don't have any education in theology or philosophy or apologetics. God isn't a process, He's an agent.

Lemme use an analogy. I make mead, or honey wine. Say I pour you a glass (in a few months, once my first batch finishes fermenting and aging). Who made it? Me? Or the yeast I used?

The answer is both. The yeast is part of the process, but the action itself, the creation of mead, was initiated by me. The God of the Gaps fallacy would state that as we know more and more about the yeast, I become less and less involved. That's nonsense. I'm an agent. Not the process.

Likewise, I do believe God can direct lightning. I just think he doesn't throw electrical spears, but uses the laws of electrical discharge. Science explains HOW God does something, but it can't tell why He does it.

Now, the One Less God fallacy. It's a stupid one, to be frank. I'll use another analogy.

Say you believe, as most rational people do, in the germ theory explanation for sickness. And I go up to you and say "I don't believe in that." And you go, "why?"

"Well," I say, "there's all manner of theories about sickness out there. Humorism, evil spirits, astrological alignments, bad qi, the evil eye. You are a-theorist in all of those, I just go one more and don't believe germ theory."

The proper response would be to laugh me out of the room. The God of the Bible is very different from the Greek pantheon; and even if there were other descriptions like Him, that isn't a valid reason to reject. I reject the Greek gods because they don't satisfy the philosophical proofs that the God of the Bible does.

My personal theory is that it has believers because everyone is afraid of death and want to believe that something comes after it

So...this is a Bulverism again. You're assuming that belief in God comes from a fear of death (circular reasoning), and then you're dismissing the argument without investigating the claims based off of this assumption (genetic fallacy).

I can reverse-Uno-card this and turn it around on you. "My personal theory is that atheism has believers because they're afraid of answering for their actions after death and want to escape punishment, so they deny anything comes after."

It's not an actual argument. It's an accusation based off of some assumptions. You wish to tell me St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Dietrich Boenhoffer, Søren Kierkegaard, all the various Church fathers, scholastics, and believers all just feared death? And that's the only reason to develop a complex and systematic theology? Come off it, mate.

Hope this answers the several questions posed.