It is said,
"The statement that science is the only path to the t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."

But since you are going with an atheist astrophysicist, here's some God seeking science for ya.

Read this:
Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.
by Dr. Stephen Meyer.

The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer,presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.

I'd very much like to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson (The Human who Destroys God) debate Dr. Meyer,
Meyer discusses Tyson and masterfully concludes his book with a chapter on the fallacy of the "God of the gaps".

This is how Meyer begins his Conclusion:

"At 2:00am on a wintery English night in December 1986, I sat outside Isaac Newton's old rooms at the front of Trinity College. As a deep fog moved among the medieval colleges in the center of Cambridge, I reflected on how thinking about science and God had changed since the publication of Newton's great Principia in 1687, almost exactly three centuries earlier. In the epilogue to a later edition of that book called "The General Scholium" and in other scientific works, notably the Optiks, Newton articulated a profoundly theological perspective. Not only did he extol the order and uniformity of nature as a reflection of God's character and superintending care of creation, he argued for the existence of God based on design evident in nature -- in short for a God hypothesis.

Meyer's book is a mind-blower, but you'd best have a pretty solid background in the physical sciences and math to negotiate some of the deep science involved. In fact, in introducing his book, Meyer said he tried to write the narratives to accommodate the widest readership, but that when diving into the science, casual readers may encounter problems. Even with my own science background, primarily in physics and the astro-sciences, I struggled through some sections totally baffled. But I got the message.

Smart people know to avoid fallacies.

One of them is known as the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It’s Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”

The classic example concerns the rooster and the sunrise.

Every morning before the sun comes up, the rooster does his crazy crowing routine, waking up everyone around. Shortly after, the light begins to appear on the horizon.

If you knew nothing else, and you watched this happen over and over, you might conclude that the rooster is causing the sun to rise.

Of course, this is testable. You could k**l the rooster and see what happens. The sun still comes up. But wait just a moment. Just the fact that this one rooster is dead doesn’t mean that all roosters are gone. Some rooster somewhere is crowing and causing the sun to rise. So your little experiment doesn’t disprove the theory.

What a conundrum, right?

If someone is convinced that a bird is controlling the sun, there is probably no way to convince him otherwise.

We can laugh at this example. How can someone be so dumb? Actually, this basic fallacy affects all science in all times, all places, and all subjects.

MY COMMENT: Examples: 1) Look, California’s cases are down and California bans gatherings, therefore coercive measures are controlling v***s spread! 2) Countless famous people took to social media to announce they had C****-** but it was a mild case thanks to the v*****e, or 3) I took the v*****e and got weak, tired, and a bad headache, so I know the v*****e was working!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/the-fallacy-that-rules-the-world-5635419?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge

Just another lie. you guys believe anything the elites tell you.

You believe the Old Testament is true and accurate even though the PROOF is in total opposition that it is false..

You believe the American Patriots won the Revolutionary War/War of Independance and without proof they were the documented victors with either a Doctrine of Conquest or an American Treaty.

You guys believe the oceans and lakes curve around a spinning ball earth when it is known they are Level to the eyes and measurements. All you have to do is look at NASA's curvature rate of the earth per mile.