The god question subverts the requirements of science. 

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (I Corinthians 13:9-12)

Yes. So far.

Socrates/Plato differentiates between our sensory experience and the ideal.

Kant differentiates between phenomena and noumena. A phenomenon fits the requirements of science, it can be observed, tested, and in some way predicted. A noumenon is conceived but may not be sensed and even if sensed seems beyond testing and predicting.

There is an argument that science is well-matched for phenomenal reality but insufficient for noumenal reality.

The Higgs boson and other particles have been conceived. Some have sensed signs of their presence. They are being tested. They are not (yet) predictable. Some scientists argue they are beyond prediction.

If something cannot be predicted does that make it noumenal?

Dark Matter was conceived long before it was perceived or tested. The behavior of Dark Matter, as currently understood, is now fundamental to cosomological projections.

Was Dark Matter noumenal? Has it become phenomenal?

The God question does suggest mystery, power beyond predicting, a reality beyond time and space, something outside our knowing. 

Subvert is an interesting word: overturn, undermine, sabotage, disrupt. The original Latin means to turn under, as a plow turns under the soil.

The God question is intended to open up new ground, to expose our experience to new understanding.  If the question is used to bury further questions, it is misused.