"Everything in the universe is connected" and "There is a god" are two very different things.
Quantum Physics and String theory don't suggest god at all.
Your phrasing assumes a very specific characterization of "God."
First of all, we're thinking of God in our image, as an individual who's acquired a certain spatialization of time, allowing for internal dialog, strategic "if/then" thinking, etc. We've also got language (probably the lion's share of said future thinking.) So God must operate that way. Okay, let's accept all that. God's like us but bigger.
So, it's a simple enough matter to say that if every conscious thing -- indeed, every unconscious thing -- is connected, it could well be in the cells of a greater body, which for schlitz and giggles (for the moment) we could call God.
So let's call the all-connected oneness of everything "God." If that's the case, and we need God to
not be a personal God, that is fine. We have, then, the unusual phenomenon of "cells" being of a higher order than the whole, which is of a higher order of complexity. By way of analogy, it would be like pinpointing one nerve cell, and looking at why it has all these messages going in and out of it -- because, you see, it is the brains of the operation. What we really know to be going on is that the whole achieves consciousness (or doesn't,) and each cell is a relatively puny operator in the process. Lose one cell, and the organism does not lose its ability to function.
So, let's think. If all things are connected, they may just all be connected, to no higher effect. Individual humans, or dolphins or aliens or something, may well be the highest order of consciousness we know of.
How shall we separate the assumption from the "science"? I don't think we can. Science is by nature objective, and involves the study of objective phenomena.
If we are studying even individual consciousness, we have enough trouble, although it can be done in a way, provided we are studying
someone else's consciousness. But who'll stand outside of the connected universe, if indeed we accept that it's connected, and design the experiment to determine the character of the higher being said organization might (or might not) comprise?
I have no illusion that one can prove such a thing. We all understand that. I for one do not think we can disprove it either.
::shrug:: this is the trouble with discussing proof of religion in general. But universal connection is being discussed. To the extent that we establish a universal connection, but not yet a universal consciousness, we've certainly established a necessary but not sufficient condition to establishing the principal of a universe that at some level is conscious.
You can't interrogate a grain of sand, a turtle, or a neutron, and find the universe to be conscious, any more than you can interrogate a single neuron and find out that a person is conscious.
But at the very least we can make note of unusual connectedness when we find it. And of course, it's always best to explain it without some unwarranted flight of fancy about the supernatural.
What we're beginning to talk about, however, is "religion" that's in synch with nature, rather than "super"natural -- not a God who creates, but a God who is the sum of creation. (and we can save the infinite regression of "who/what created
that" for the end of the conversation, where indeed all such conversations seem destined to end.)
PFnV