Actually, you point out why it is fodder for purely Speculative Fiction, not Science Fiction. :-)
I just thought of a double-whammy analogy...
Picture a country where there's a lottery of everyone at birth, and only the winners are allowed to live and collect their prize--all non-winners are immediately executed. Without getting into the odds of the lottery and payouts and all (irrelevant to the point), that means that there might be only one survivor..or maybe more than one.
But.... EVERY survivor would look at himself and say, "Wow! EVERYONE is a winner! The Universe is SO perfect! It must be a rigged game!" And that's what we're like.
If we had developed in a universe that was unable to support life, we wouldn't be here. Even though it's chance, the mere fact that we can observe makes it look like a fixed game. No way can you prove a Creator from within the system, when we have no way of seeing into other universes and know if we're more than a random mote that got lucky out of many tries.
Why is this a double-whammy? Because it also teaches a lesson about Natural Selection. :-)
FWIW I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove a Creator with science no matter how far reaching the observations nor how sophisticated the technology. I'm bemused by those on either side that think they can or think it matters. I may be wrong but I think most scientists would admit that there are some things scientific method just isn't suited to investigating. That's not to say it's not worth trying in some cases because the limits of science couldn't be found if the boundaries weren't pushed.
But if what you're looking for is said to be omni-present and beyond the physical that means there will be nowhere in particular to look and no expectation of ever seeing Him. He's already everywhere you look and unobservable by any physical means. Where does scientific method begin to get a grip on that? Moreover, where is the reason in trying? ; )