What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[robvalue]

That's an argument. Arguments are not evidence. What you believe to be true has no effect on what is actually true.

Completely wrong. These are common observations about reality. Which of those listed do you consider an inaccurate description?

Did you watch my video?

You're creating an extremely simple model of reality based on some very broad observations, and just hoping there's nothing you're missing that will affect the reliability of your model. You're then applying these observations wholesale not just to all of reality but to reality itself. Even if the observations are consistent with our local area, and even within all of reality, it's a fallacy of composition to apply those to reality itself.

It's up to you to demonstrate your extremely simple model, your abstract version of reality, is in any way similar to the one we live in. You do this via evidence. You have made no predictions, and so have nothing to test. You have collected no data. You're exploring an imaginary reality in your head. Expecting me to prove that this isn't the same as our reality is the argument from ignorance, since you've got no evidence that it is. You're expecting me to prove you haven't missed any possible detail that could render the results invalid. "It sounds like it" or "It's consistent so far" is not enough when you expect to apply it as your only method of getting a result. Your conclusions are packed inside your premises; even if this is all logically sound, which it is not. Where on earth did God come from? At best you have "a cause" which you've defined into existence as having special properties which defeat your own rules that you're relying on.

You're even claiming to be able to out-do all scientific study ever done by creating this incredibly simple model and just waltzing past the plank time with your everyday intuitive logic. The chances of your imaginary reality in your head bearing any resemblance to what our reality is like at this point becomes near to zero. And past this point, even going external to our reality, you're simply making it up. The only way to check the reliability of the model is to test it via predictions, and you have no access to what happens external/previous to our reality.

You're not doing science at all. And this is why your conclusions are vague, suspect, unverifiable and entirely useless. If you resort to current scientific methods to show the validity of your models, then you can't simply ignore them when you regress towards the Big Bang and announce you've found a way to go through it.