This far reaching article approaches many of the “BIG” questions in an open minded way, which is very refreshing. I am often frustrated by the scientists’ tendency to transform assumptions into certainties by citing as “evidence” the results of mathematical equations the data for which is based on yet more assumptions.
It is easy to build an argument against the existence of The God Of Abraham, but there are other views of the divine. One I like (without believing it,) is that of the Uitoto tribe of the Orinoco rain forest. Their spirituality is based on the belief that the father god created the world by attaching a dream to an illusion. That’s certainly one for metaphysical philosophers to play with.
As to the question posed by the headline, in order to tackle that a definition of the divine that can be accepted by all must be agreed on. And once that impossible task is completed, before we can start we need to persuade the scientists addressing the question of how little we actually know of the univrse or even our little part of it.