Does It Matter That Science Can't Detect God?

Karlo Broussard is a Catholic apologist and posted a 2-min video with the above title. Following is a script of such, with my comments (in red):

Atheists often justify their atheism by saying there’s no evidence for God. But when pressed about what type of evidence they’re looking for, it often turns out they’re only looking for scientific evidence. But this quest for truth starts off on the wrong foot. (why? all objective evidence is scientific)

Science is an empirically based discipline, and as such is ordered to physical reality within our physical universe. But if science’s detecting powers are restricted to physical reality, and God by definition is a non-physical being, then how could science in principle detect God? The answer is, “It can’t!” (true, BUT, science can and does investigate the claims of God's intervention in physical reality, the only reality we know about. all such claims have been falsified)

Science can no more detect God than a metal detector can detect plastic cups. And to not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for him is as unreasonable as refusing to believe there are plastic cups on the beach because a metal detector provided no evidence for them. (see response directly above)

The metal detector’s inability to detect plastic cups says nothing about whether or not plastic cups exist on the beach. It’s simply a manifestation of the limitations of the detecting powers of the instrument. (fallacious analogy to the point in hand: science can falsify any claim on physical reality. any God that does not interact with reality is not worth knowing about because it would have no effect on us)

Similarly, science’s inability to detect God says nothing about whether or not God exists; it’s simply a manifestation of the limitations of the detecting powers of science—it can be used to detect only that which is empirically verifiable and quantifiably measurable. (see all of the above pertinent comments)

To say that God doesn’t exist (atheist don't say this, we only says there is no evidence for any claim for such, big difference) because science can’t detect him is to confuse the method for knowing reality with reality itself. In order to know the things that science can’t, such as God, we must use other methods, such as philosophy. (philosophy is NOT evidence, and, unlike science, there is no consensus within such)

So, it really doesn’t matter that science can’t detect God, and therefore it’s not a justifiable reason to be an atheist. (absolutely a false conclusion from faulty thinking)