The world may pretend otherwise, but there is scientific evidence for God or for an "intelligent" creator. The three that are easiest for the average person to fully comprehend are the causes for the existence of the universe, first living cell, and modern humans.
These three pieces of evidence do not necessarily support the idea that the Christian God is the intelligence behind their creation (it could equally be another religion's God or gods, or even aliens); but the provision of Christian-God specific empirical evidence (such as the New Testament as a frameless, unharmonized, correlative anthology) justifies the assumption the Christian God created the universe, life, and modern humans.
Probability levels are not the same. "Proof" should only be used in reference to issues with a very high probability threshold such as a five-sigma (5σ) or at a 99.99994% likelihood. At this level, it is good enough to be considered provable.
Considering evidence for God to be four-sigma (4σ) or a 99.994% likelihood means God's existence is highly probable, despite not being provable. What this means is based on what is currently known, "God" as cause is the most likely answer.
In simplistic terms:
Provable = 100% certainty
Plausible > 50.1% up to <99.994% likely
We need ambiguity in regards to God's existence since there is a difference between belief and knowledge.
To know with perfect certainty that God exists (such as seeing him or replicating the supernatural in a lab) means any sin would be a rebellion against knowledge - the same offense Satan and the demons are said to have committed - which means one cannot obtain forgiveness for sins.
That window of doubt gives us the gift of faith - the ability to believe without perfect knowledge. That allows us to come to Christ and be forgiven so that we can metamorphosize to the next stage of our existence.
We know, to the best of our senses and instruments, that the universe exists. How did it come into reality 13.8 billion years ago? In other words, what caused the Big Bang?
Roughly speaking, there are two possibilities: Nothing caused the universe to come into being or something triggered it into existence.
The nothing-to-something idea is incoherent since it results in a logical error or in the creation of an infinite number of universes (depending on whether the trigger is aseitically static or dynamic).
The something-to-something idea means the universe has five possible causes:
This evidence is empirical because if the universe was an inevitable nonintelligent process; then scientists should be able to create a baby universe in a lab and show how it can form naturally.
What are the pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter? How do precursor molecules self-assemble into proteins, lipids, saccharides, and nucleotides - especially before their enclosure within a lipid bilayer to prevent environmental degradation?
What were the catalysts? What were the environmental conditions that prevented degradation and contamination? How was the integrity of the five-carbon sugar kept intact until it created DNA? What was the sequence for each component prior to fusion into a living cell?
When one examines the incredible complexity of the simplest living cell, which is vastly more complex than the most advanced computer; one quickly realizes abiogenesis proponents vastly exaggerate the claim that life naturally arises from nonliving materials under specific environmental conditions.
Anyone who knows how life can be created out of non-living materials will become the richest person who ever lived – because he or she would’ve created the foundation for feeding the planet using industrial means, without the need for farming or raising food.
This evidence is empirical because synthetic chemists can try to replicate abiogenesis within a pre-biotic Earth environment and show how it can occur naturally.
Ever since the Miller–Urey experiment in 1952, we can replicate the pre-biotic Earth conditions in a lab to observe if living cells can spontaneously emerge from non-life. Precursor molecules, sure, but they are more comparable to "rivets" than an "airplane" that a living cell is comparable to.
Just because an airplane may contain rivets does not mean the creation of rivets proves they can self-assemble into a functioning airplane.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are not just incrementally superior to any other hominid or animal; we’re qualitatively different as the only known technologically intelligent species and as the only species that uniquely possesses dozens of traits that confer outlier advantages.
It is not a claim but a demonstrable fact that anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are vastly superior to every other form of life in the sense that we are the only species to develop complex tools and technology that artificially enhance our survival and reproductive chances, and, we are the only species whose will and internal restraints determine the fate of all other life forms.
For whatever reason, all the genetic mutations that make us unique and confer over 40 traits and behaviors that result in evolutionary advantages over every other animal, occurred within a short period, within just one genus, and nowhere else.
We have evolutionary evidence for the past 650 million years with at least a billion species, and we’ve never seen just one of these traits and behaviors replicated in any other species outside the archaic human Homo sapiens by evolutionary change. Not one. And yet, they all appeared in just one genus, within a time span too short for these major evolutionary changes to occur.
It is as if someone or something did some germline genetic modifications to one or more hominids at some point or points in the past three hundred thousand years that drastically altered Homo sapiens to create the anatomically modern human Homo sapiens sapiens.
One or two outlier traits may emerge from genetic mutation within a span of 200,000 to 300,000 years, but what kind of mutations can explain all of modern human’s unique characteristics, especially when there are no precedents in a billion other species despite over 650 million years of animal evolution?
This evidence is empirical because scientists can try replicating the specific mutating combinations that diverged humans from our hominid ancestors that gave us technological intelligence and show how they can occur naturally.