That would indeed be very … God!
But I was only referring to a limited human perspective (and perhaps the even more specific yet scientific perspective). If something doesn’t exist at all, then of course it would be an explanation for nothing. But there is another way that a very much existing thing can be an explanation for nothing: and that is if it is the explanation for everything - i.e. the ground of all being. As such it is totally useless as a scientific tool. God the Creator being confused with a bit player in the universe (like the imagined Zeus, a cause of some particular events but not others) is, on the Christian view, just a category error. That is, in this case, to think that God is an item that can fit into some category. It’s quite possible (likely even, to my mind) that the god T and so many others insist on wanting some evidence for simply doesn’t exist - which might explain their want of evidence. The God of Christ, however, (I believe) is a different matter entirely! (As in … not a matter at all that we could master him either scientifically or spiritually.)
[Even the implied categorization of my pronoun ‘him’ is inaccurate and a reflection only of my culture-bound limitations and thought habits rather than any objective reflection on what or who God is. Language - even scriptural language - will always (and necessarily) fail us here - even as it can nonetheless fulfill its more modest function as a help (or a hindrance). A reflection that I also feel I owe to Macdonald.]
[[…which is why words - even sacred and true words from a text - were/are/always will be insufficient to the task of salvation, which it turns out had to come in the form of an incarnated person - the embodied Word, that did enter this world as a “bit player”, and with whom we can have relationship in the Spirit. There is the whole of the Christian message - not in these words, but in the Person to which they refer.]]