So, you are saying that if science discovers that the Universe was created by an intelligent being, that being is not God because God is supernatural and thus cannot be discovered by science? Isn't that sort of moving the goal-posts?

It strikes me that the sole aim of many folk who argue for God is to get scientists to admit that they don't know everything, that they will never know everything and that the supernatural exists.

Well, any decent scientist will happlily admit to the first two, but quite rightly view the third as being an attempt to persuade them to stop looking. Because one of the primary aims of organised religion for centuries has been to shut science down.

As regards the supernatural itself, all I can see is that we have not even come close to grasping the full extent of the natural. So using the supernatural to explain things we don't understand is just lazy.

The article you refer to has a common failing at the basis. That is the assumption that the Universe emerged, or was created from, nothing and so must be either the work of a supernatural creator, or a 'brute fact'. Why not assume instead that something else existed before this Universe, and something else will exist after it? That this is a process, either cyclic, evolutionary or linear, that has always been going on and will always continue? That there was no beginning as such, and there will be no end, if you consider the prcess as a whole, rather than just the bit of it we are part of? Or even that there is an Omniverse out there which we are just a tiny bit of?

We simply don't know, do we? But better a painstaking search for the few crumbs of truth we can find and comprehend, than easy answers that may only be fanciful notions!