This is an appeal to authority (and not a very good one at that), which is a argumentative fallacy.
Wrong. In general, in science, you do not give a claim any weight until you have seen at least one piece of evidence for it. I could say that the universe is actually shaped like a giant three dimensional triangle. And there's no way you could disprove that for absolute certain until you know all the physical relations of the universe. So, bummer, I guess we have to give credence to my theory. Well, no, not in science, that's not how it works.
Unless you are very, very old I doubt this is true. For quite some time we've known that the sun has movement.
I don't. I dismiss it because I've seen no evidence to support the theory. God doesn't seem illogical - by definition he is outside of logic. So that would be a very poor argument. No, I don't ascertain belief to anything I don't know of good proof for.
No. I don't know if there's a god or not. I won't believe until I see proof. In fact, theists are the ones acting like they 'know everything'. They are the ones putting belief in something without evidence - faith. You've got this completely backwards.
Yes, the questions of astrophysics are absolutely massively difficult and imposing. It's very intimidating. But the fact that we can't answer every question about how life came about is not proof that there had to be a creator. At one point we had no idea what the fuck lightning was, that didn't mean that there was some lightning-god shooting down beams of electricity without a physical explination. Though, that is what people believed. More on this later.
See - you're the one presuming to know everything. Science searches. You've just said "nope, this is impossible, let's not even consider looking for the evidence, let's not even see if our theoretical models are correct, let's not research."
Look, people largely believe in a god because it's hard to answer the big questions. When many now-answerable questions were not answerable, people believed god was directly responsible for the thing; lightning, rain, floods, tides and seasons, etc. Now that we know how the sun and atmosphere create and effect these things, people no longer say "well lightning happens because god throws a lightning bolt". Even a theist will say there is a physical explination.
Now the theists recourse is in other unanswerable questions of the time - such as how did the universe begin, how did life start from non-life... Just because we haven't found the answer yet - or because you don't understand the answers in place - doesn't mean that there was some mystical and all-creating power that exists. That is a lazy answer, and we must search and search until we find a real answer. If there's a god, maybe we'll prove that and maybe not. But we must keep searching, otherwise we are doomed to never find the real answer.
But frankly, god doesn't solve the difficulties of creation. You're either going to say something weird and bizarre like a big bang happened or something weird and bizarre like a god exists. The difference is that we can search for evidence of the former.
