Yes, indirect evidence. We must assume some things when evaluating indirect evidence. I don't discount it but it is not in the same ballpark as observational evidence. Observational evidence can be tested and repeated.
All observation is indirect in some sense. We do have observational evidence - apart from the characteristic orbital and radiation signatures that have been observed, several gravitational wave signatures matching predictions for merging black holes have been observed (and clearly distinguished from the gravitational wave signatures predicted and observed for merging neutron stars).
Yes, but ideas are just that until you can test them. What I am trying to state here is that many people have "ideas" that necessarily exclude God from the equation. I would not suggest listening to these people.
It's not a question of 'necessary exclusion', but of redundancy. Where there's no need to invoke additional hypotheses to explain observations, it is redundant to invoke them.
If you want to propose ideas that include God, you can. The main problem is that the 'God hypothesis' is ill-defined, has no explanatory value, and fails all abductive criteria.
You can attribute every unknown or unexplained phenomenon to the God hypothesis by default if you wish; that's your prerogative. I don't see the utility though.
"We know" is a strange expression for theoretical ideas. That's kinda my point.
Establishing the limits within which a particular theory is known to be a good description and make accurate predictions is important. For example, we know Newtonian mechanics is a good descriptive model and makes accurate predictions at non-relativistic speeds, and we know that it breaks down at relativistic speeds, where Einsteinian Relativity is a better descriptive model - but we also know that it too has limits, where quantum effects become significant.
Many of the "evidences" that point to the modern theories can only be derived by very exclusive means that are not available to the general public. Most of these people hold to the new "science" that says that God can NEVER be the answer. In other words, most of mordern science has at its heart an anti-God view.
Science deals only with the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The supernatural is - in general - simply irrelevant, although testable claims of the supernatural have been investigated. If some god or supernatural phenomenon produces consistent and observable patterns of influence on the physical and natural world, it can be addressed by science; but it will be addressed in terms of its observed effects, rather than the unsupported claims of some particular group of believers in the supernatural.
It comes down to who do we believe, God and His Word or the godless and their theories.
There are thousands of books and scriptures professing to be the words of thousands of gods. Many contradict each other or claim to hold unique truth, and there's no plausible evidence that any of them are real. The vast majority have all the hallmarks of human-created myth and legend.
I prefer to follow explanatory models based on the results of observation and experiment. YMMV.