What would evidence of a God even look like?

[Edwardo Piet]

My argument goes like this. If there's a God that created the Universe(the Universe being everything in existence) then this God is either a part of the Universe or the Universe itself. It can't be merely a part of it, since it created it, so it must be the Universe itself. But then, there's no use calling it God. You might as well do away with the shady language and call it what it is. Nature, Universe, Cosmos. Whatever your secular preference.

Thoughts?

The dominating aspect of universal existence is space itself, occupied by and extremely small amount of mass found in a regular basic pattern: The Atom.  Even that is mostly space.

"God" could be an extant infinite substance (absolute matter) that moved to make the space of the universe. Which in equal/opposite reaction flung an extremely small amount of itself into motion and form within the universe.

The consciousness of God would be the energetic movement that an extant infinite supports as a vibrational body with no border.

"God in the Highest" remains outside relative space time.

Sounds to me that all this verbiage is just a reductionism into Panpsychism:

Strawson has argued that what he calls realistic physicalism entails panpsychism. He writes that "as a real physicalist, then, I hold that the mental/experiential is physical." He quotes the physicist Arthur Eddington in support of his position as follows: "If we must embed our schedule of indicator readings in some kind of background, at least let us accept the only hint we have received as to the significance of the background – namely that it has a nature capable of manifesting itself as a mental activity." The editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, Anthony Freeman, notes that panpsychism is regarded by many as either "plain crazy, or else a direct route back to animism and superstition." Panpsychism, however, has a long tradition in western thought.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson