It depends on what type of evidence we are expecting.
If we are expecting evidence of empirical-based things, then we cannot discount its possibility. I can agree there is a possibility of a tea-pot [empirically possible] flying somewhere out there in space billion of light years away. But this probability would be very low.
But if we are referring to God, it is not empirically-based at all. God is a philosophical idea churned out of primal reason and thus is an illusion. Note Kant’s
Based on higher critical philosophical reasoning we can conclude God is an impossibility, thus is no question of evidence for God in the first place.
No matter where the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic will apply.
Other civilization and their entities will share the same Universe and the ultimate absolutely perfect has to be same in substance regardless of how its forms are interpreted.
Why don’t you turn around [like Copernicus] to human_ness and your own self [instead of out there] to understand why humans are thinking of God in the way they do. This way is more manageable than the infinite Universe which in one sense could be an illusion [nothingness in the Buddhist Way].
Note I agreed human-liked aliens [with empirical elements] are empirically possible.
I agree but it is only in the present state that the secular is in quite a mess, but its knowledge base is expanding exponentially.
I am looking into the future with optimism as we have already mapped the full human genome and moving on to map the brain’s circuits plus knowledge is advancing in so many other fields.
With more sophisticated knowledge we will be able to dig deep to understand the human brain in relation to human existences and its problem. This is the basis for my point;
“Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.”