What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[robvalue]

That too!

To recap: a logical argument in which the premises are based in reality, but which isn't checked against reality at any other point, is completely dependent on those premises being totally 100% accurate and exhaustive.

To assume that you have managed this is folly. This is why predictive models are so important, to check back with reality that our premises are good enough for what we are trying to learn about.

It's different in some soft sciences such as history, where literally all we can do is gap fill to the best of our ability based on the evidence we do have. But still, we are using evidence to reach reasonable probabilistic conclusions. We're not just pulling stuff out of the air. And we're never announcing the existence of previously undemonstrated phenomena. We're working within the framework of what we at least know to be possible.