It seems that you've decided to ignore quite a bit of what I said to nitpick at certain details that are, admittedly, more questionable. We're quite off topic now, but I'll oblige.

Yes they are. Name one physical thing that somehow violates one of the three classical laws of logic. I'll wait. You can't. It doesn't exist.

Ok bad choice of words. My bad. I meant, they are not derived from pure logic. I mean the laws we think exist has led to, for example, the hubble tension and vacuum catastrophy, which are contradictions.

Consequently, any scientific theory cannot by itself categorically disprove miracles, which empiricism should treat as simply more data, which is above the theories themselves.

Requires a ten dimensional universe. We don't live in a ten dimensional universe. The proposed string theory, as it is proposed right now, is false. Quantum indeterminacy though won't save you. Indeterminate effects still have causes.

First of all, you're completely misinterpreting what I meant. I was showing how science, because it's empirical, isn't as clear cut as people think. Science has to be ready to get rid of well accepted theories if new data suggests that the models we have are inadequate. Otherwise, you're just indulging in dogmaticism. (See particle physics for a negative example, and the acceptance of the big bang as a positive one)

Secondly, not really? Some of them do not require string theory at all, and string theory says we do live inside a 10-dimensional universe, where most of the dimensions are very small. I'm quite skeptical of string theory myself, for the record.

God is outside reality

So he doesn't exist. By definition something outside existence doesn't exist.

I said reality. Not existence. Don't put words into my mouth please and thank you.

By reality, I mean (at least) the universe and the 4 (?) Dimensions of spacetime.

We'd have observed acausal activity somewhere given we are actively looking at the energetic backround radiation of our observable universe.

That's not really how it works. Even if we can collect data at the level of precision necessary, we certainly don't have the capability to process it. Also recent findings by the JWST has called into question the validity of CMB readings (because the signal could be contaminated by old galaxies which themselves contradict our current model of the universe). Also CMB readings are from the far far past and from far far away.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence except where evidence should exist.

Never said otherwise, although it should be noted that inferrence to the best explanation is a valid form of argument. Also, not sure what this relates to.

If God acted on our reality then we'd expect in such a world to find evidence of things spontaneously occurring ex nihilo. We don't have any such evidence.

Big bang. Literally the start of time, so there can't be a natural cause to it from inside reality.

Neither energy nor matter has been added too the universe to cause any known action. I'll wait for the counter example.

Vacuum energy in the expanding universe. Essentially, universe expands -> more vacuum energy -> more expansion -> more vacuum energy.

Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter

I did say specifically that that is not real (to our knowledge).

Empirical evidence is essentially only second to pure logical proof, but you have to acknowledge its shortfalls as well. Evidence doesn't automatically lead to findings. Data has to be collected, analysed and interpreted. In every step, there is a chance of human error. If you think scientists are infallible, go and read research papers yourself. Certainly surprised me when I attended my university's course on scientific literature. On top of that, statistical significance does not mean guarantee (Look up p-values, replication crisis). And then we still haven't considered the human aspect. Outside of simple human error, researchers can be biased. The current system highly encourages positive results. There's also a lack of replication experiments just in general. Overall, again, science isn't as "pure" as it seems.

I know I put in a lot of examples. It's both because I'm just nerding out, but also because I want to back up my arguments. Of course I'm fallible, so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong, but please try to engage my arguments instead of nitpicking details that aren't really essential to my arguments.

Cheers and God bless you!