If your definition of truth is scientific truth then in order to prove god exists you would likely have to do a series of experiments that verify the presence of god. My definition of truth is scientific truth and on that basis I don't believe in god. However, this is still a matter of premises, you have assumed that the only form of truth is scientific truth, by which you have already asserted the non-existence of god through experimental invariance or other similar properties that postulate results don't happen through miracles or divine intervention.

As for the other point about accumulating evidence based on god not interfering, this is also problematic. You have already assumed a theory which requires the non-existence of god to set up an empirical framework in which experimental results can discover general laws about the universe. Any experiment within this framework cannot then provide evidence for the non-existence of god as it is already assumed.