If there is a God at all, then any evidence for the existence of that God must come from science only because the language of science is the only language that will be the same everywhere in the universe.
If there is a God, then that God will not be the God of a small tribe on this earth; neither will he be the God of this earth only. Rather, he will be the God of the entire universe. The current estimate is that there are about two trillions of galaxies in the observable part of our universe. If we now suppose that there is at least one planet in each galaxy on which human or human-like creatures have appeared, then there are at least two trillion human or human-like civilizations in the observable part of the universe. So, if God is to keep any evidence of his existence in the universe, then he will have to keep it in a language that will be equally understood by all these two trillion civilizations. And that language can only be the language of science.
That is the reason as to why any evidence for the existence of God must come from science only.
There is one more reason as to why this evidence must come from science only, the reason being that the God-question is essentially an existential question, the question being whether there is any God at all. As this is an existential question, so this cannot be settled by logic alone. By logic alone we cannot decide that there is a God; or, by logic alone we cannot decide that there is no God. In both the cases, we need some evidence and this evidence can come from science only.
That is the reason as to why all the traditional arguments for the existence of God that were known to man for more than two thousand years, have so far failed to convince the non-believers that there is a justified reason to believe in the existence of God, because all these traditional arguments have tried to settle an essentially existential question by means of logic alone which they cannot do.
I have already stated that any evidence for the existence of God must come from science only. So, without much advancement in science, it was not possible to get any such evidence from there. Only when science has made some progress, then only we begin to get such shreds of evidence from science.
1) God is mostly described by the theists as spaceless and timeless. In the first decade of the 20th century, two equations in SR have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. At the speed of light, time totally stops and even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness.
2) Then in the 21st century, scientists have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal in nature. It has already been explained earlier that 'non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. That means scientists are now saying that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged.
3) Here it should be remembered that modern science began from the time of Copernicus (1473-1543). Several centuries have passed after that and in the 21st century only scientists have come to the conclusion that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature. So, it is quite logical to expect that they might require some more centuries for coming to the conclusion that this spaceless and timeless thing is actually a conscious being.