That would be well and good and portend an excellent potential for a worldwide, common understanding of God, but its downfall is that it still is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. Different presumptions will be brought to the task, and different assumptions inferred from the evidence. The evidence may be plain enough in hindsight, or divine sight, but the perception of the viewer will mean the difference between message sent=message received or error. We can say at least that much about man, regardless of what we know about God.
Actually, I think we can say a bit more. Man seems a very imperfect creature when it comes to perception; conclusion; decision. We are error prone, we are limited. What would be the likelihood that such a creature could accurately plumb the greater depth behind the surface of things? We are the surface in a matter a speaking, getting to the truth behind ourselves would entail a dizzying loop, like staring down the endless hall of images in parallel mirrors. Might as well try bottling the wind.
It seems to me, what we need is an active witness from the One behind it all, a personal commentary on the evidence he left behind--like watching a director's cut, with explanatory notes straight from the horse's mouth. We would then have a definitive statement on the subject that dispelled all the flowery tripe of the artsy-fartsy pundits. What we need, then, is self-disclosure from God. In fact, I would posit, we stand no chance whatsoever of knowing anything about God with any certainty apart from it.
And even that, is not enough.