We indeed cannot say anthing at all that will get any others who do not want to conclude that there is God to see that there really is God, though there is great order existing, everything of the universe would be very fine-tuned for its physical constants such as the gravitational constant to be just right for any life to be possible in a viable universe coming from a big bang, we are here presuming we can know from what we find what real truth of reality is, we have no physical explanation for any of the nonphysical things we believe in such as real love, real value, real justice, without God, and we who will see it say that God explains all the universe with us in it and they don't have anything at all to explain the universe coming into being, when it certainly did have a beginning, and there is something then which is necessary existence, which would explain the universe with us in it coming to be. Even if they don't want to acknowledge God to be that, they have no logic against there being something that is necessary being, whether it be Brahma, Quetzacoatl, Tezcatlipoca, Ptah, Azathoth, or anything else, known or unknown, that is not itself something brought into existence by anything else, but is existing necessarily. But we can believe what we see has abundant evidence.
You use "god" as a default place holder for the unknown. This is god of the gaps, god of the ever shrinking gaps. A god that gets smaller and smaller with each scientific discovery.
You are not presenting evidence for a god, but are appealing to lack of evidence for something else as being "evidence" for a god of some sort.
Most atheists are comfortable in the position of "unknown".
For example, why does the moon always have the same side facing earth as it orbits the earth?
It would be an incredible feat of coincidence to have its rotation exactly match its orbit so that it always presents the same side exactly facing the earth. It is almost impossible to think this would be a coincidence, it is so finely tuned that god must have done it.
But then scientists discover the gravity concept of being "tidaly locked". Oh so, its not a coincidence, Oh we can explain it with the natural forces, shrugs.
So, before humans understood the concept of tidal locking, should they have assumed "god did it" or should they just have said "it is unknown why this happens"?
If you don't currently have a scientific explanation for something, should you just conclude that "god did it"?
You do know that science is a method of discovery. If we already knew everything, we wouldn't need to do science. If our answer to everything is "god did it" then we wouldn't bother with scientific discovery, we wouldn't learn anything, we wouldn't discover stuff, we wouldn't advance.
We would look at stuff and say "wow, god did it". It seems to me to be very intellectually lazy, and would stagnate us as a species. We would become (and stay) the most ignorant "intelligent" life in the universe. But at least we would believe in god, right?