There cannot be any evidence for or against God. God is outside of our limited parameters of understanding, and arbitrary standards of "proof and disproof". Arguing for evidence, for or against God, is foolish for not understanding the dictionary definition of the term 'God'. No matter how deep or profound of a question you believe you're posing, it doesn't amount to a "kiddie pool", if you don't at all know the context of what is you speak of.
If you don't know that God cannot be proven or disproven, I don't know what to tell you, other than you're 'wrong'. Unless you can know all there is to know, and last I check, it is not a capability humans posses, you cannot say with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a God. God is a subjective awareness one accepts, or not, on the 'faith', ones convictions are correct.
The evidence of the universe can only suggest God as a possibility, or not, but does not confirm either way. Our standards of "proof" are only as sound as our understanding of all there is, thus, no there is no reliable evidence based off of man made metrics. Depending on one's understanding, the evidence may "suggest" (not 'prove') the possible existence, or lack thereof, of God.
Making an argument from the perspective of a far gone conclusion, one way or the other, is an intellectual fallacy, that fails to understand faith and science. The idea of science and faith without the other is limiting and flawed. "Blind faith" without a verifiable means to confirm one's beliefs is impractical. And all scientific pursuits are accepted on the 'faith' that a hypothesis is worthy of further examination under the guidelines of the scientific method.
Both theists and atheists are susceptible to being misled by their own beliefs, which are used to only confirm ones bias. This is how theists make and omnipresent God out to be "elsewhere"; and the so-called "experts" investigate the "origins of existence" through the big bang, using the same exact science that tell us that the nature of the cosmos is to 'conserve itself', by 'Universal Law'.
The assumption that God can be argued on the grounds of being, "distant" or "absent", is not in accordance with faith or science. This is an inherent fallacy of the "fundamental-materialist" paradigm that limits observations to the superficial "appearance" of linear form, and tends to exclude the nonlinear domain of formless 'essence'. The mistake is assuming that 'content' (components, specifics, details) defines 'context' (meaning, significance and implications), and that the "quantitative" determines "qualitative".
The "linear" is always a result of the "nonlinear", just as the 'emptiness' of the sky allows weather conditions to "come and go". "Sound" and "motion" are only detectable against the background of 'silence' and 'stillness'. It is out of 'formless and intangible' thought that ideas arise as "tangible form". All physical matter and energy is entirely comprised of nonphysical subatomic particle charges, that never physically interact with each other.
Even 'to exist', is a nonlinear expression. If energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only made to change form, it would imply that existence is 'eternal' and 'uncaused', which is not unlike an 'omnipresent God' without "beginning" and "end". Hence, why there is always 'something' rather than 'no-thing'. It may not be your opinion, but some might consider that to be 'Divine Genius'.
The materialist view is fixated and identifies with the linear paradigm of form, failing to recognize causeless and unending, continuous change. When you impose "perceived sequence", everything "appears" to come with a "beginning, middle, and "end", thus it is assumed that there is a "place and time", from which things "start" and when they are "settled". There isn't anything is the Laws of Physics to suggest the source of existence.
The opening passages of the Book of Genesis, are typically misinterpreted to explain the "origins of existence". The presence of God signifies that existence 'already exists', and if you interpret the opening of Genesis properly, it is revealed that it describes the "beginning of form", which comes from the 'formlessness of darkness and void'. And from the 'Light' of consciousness awareness, the contours and shapes of form are exposed.
"From the earth we are made, and to the earth we shall return". Biology confirms that the human body contains the same metals and minerals that make up the earth's crust. If the universe appears to be "fine tuned", it cannot be acknowledge without supposing there is a 'tuner'. Relegating everything to a strictly material existence is a convenient way of not addressing that there is anything 'Divine' about the construction of our universe.