1. What the OP seems to want is some sort of definite empirical evidence of a characteristic of a god. However, were there one piece of definite empirical evidence for a characteristic of a god, there would no longer be any need for belief. The existence of a god would be established fact.
To be blunt, so what? Moses saw god. Job talked to god. The OT is rife with stories about yhwh interacting directly with people. Jesus did a shitload of miracles for lots of people for the sole purpose of "proving" his bona fides. This whole "faith" thing only became a thing in recent times when people figured out how to use empiracle methods to sort the true from the untrue. And they learned that their god hypothesis did not fare well using it.
So I do not find the excuse that detecting god would ruin the whole set up to be convincing. Rather, it appears that this argument is an admission that you anticipate the universe to behave exactly as if there were no god
. Since you have made your god completely undetectable, you have made your god appear completely non-existant.
For all intents and purposes, you are an atheist. You see, existant things have in influence. My car, which exists, consumes gas, is visible, produces exhaust, takes me places, etc. It is entangled
with the rest of reality.
My dog, which does not exist, does not consume food, poop on the lawn, bark at night. Because it does not exist, it is not entangled with reality, it has no impact. Your god, which you go to lengths to claim does not have any impact on reality, is similarly unentagled with reality. And so, is as non-existant as my dog.