i personally do not care if there is a super-entity ("God" or otherwise) or a collection of them.
i see no influence of their existence in my daily life (besides those who i feel have deluded themselves into believing there is one), but that does not mean they do not exist.
newton himself tried relinking the sciences and religion, and while an interesting effort, was wasted, as they can co-exist, but neither wishes to release control, so to speak, of some of their founding principles.
now, as to the situations being experienced by that family and their friends: yes, it is quite a tragedy. there are no other words to describe it.
however, that does not mean some higher being does not exist. it could mean that they do not exist, or it could mean he is trying to teach a lesson ['he' is a supposition, sexist as it appears, yes, but not intended to be sexist] to the family (although it appears they have enough to worry about besides a lesson) or maybe it is those around them that this entity is trying to enlighten.
either way, the situation sucks, yes. physical proof that god exists, no.
your 'proof' is a combination of emotions and preconceptions about such a higher being, but linking those concepts and emotions to this situation is not "allowed" in terms of the logical flow of reasoning, to arrive at the conclusion that it is 'physical proof' that [the] higher entity ['God' as it were].
of course, it could be argued that mathematics is abstract of physical existence, and the debate would be quite lively; however, the field of mathematics is based on just a few axioms (preconceptions) and *no* emotions.
in fact, anything emotional will negatively impact (or at least, from a first glance) any flow of logic or reasoning, unless that is the subject of the discourse. however, as this is not the case in this situation, it only damages the potential main point.
alas, therefore, your 'physical' proof that a meta-physical entity does not exist does not hold water. nor can it stand on the waves of logic and reason.
