What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[snowtracks]

If you think about, there wouldn't be anything without God's existence; no matter, energy, information, or mind

Says who?  I have been around for 62 some odd years and to date, not one single person has presented anything that could even be remotely considered evidence, let alone proof, for the possibility that there might be a god.  Everything is hearsay, I read it in a book, anecdotes and opinion.

So again, Who says? What is your evidence.  I am not even asking for proof because I know that even evidence of a non-existent being is impossible to come by.

Science, however, has demonstrated, through empirical evidence, how the universe possibly began and how it works.

It’s a matter of comparing the naturalistic model to the creation model and choosing the one that best fits the observable data from all the sciences. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a policy statement that implicitly and strictly adheres to a materialistic understanding of the nature of science. So scientists accepted a self-imposed limitation to the hypothesis they are willing to accept. Hence, all their conclusion must adher to the principle of methodological materialism including origin of the universe, and life or phenomena such as human consciousness. To publish or secure grants that have the AAAS policy or similar (Nature, Nova, Smithsonian, public and most private universities, etc), the researchers most exclude by policy any creation model evidence. Nothing wrong with AAAS like institutions setting rules for their members (policy statement, not a conspiracy); however, the problem is that they have excluded conclusion before the research even begins (as stated by Richard Lewontin American evolutionary biologist ‘…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door‘)*
; and that most readers don’t know of this a priori restrictive policy. Some researcher even are convinced of the creation model, but will of course interpret the finding naturalistically. Therefore, most of the ‘science’ this board’s posters are so enameled with is really pre-loaded ’science’. In the case of evolution, big gapping holes in the theory is explained by an appeal to future discoveries, but real science is based on what is known not what is not known.
　
* https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin