Relying on a deus ex machina to explain what we do not yet know makes no sense at all. We can observe the universe, better and better all the time. We cannot observe gods at all. One has evidence of existence; the other has no evidence at all. The only logical conclusion is that those deities do not exist, but are simply imaginary things used to escape the work of exploration of what is real.
The equations are completely different.
Using a supernatural explanation is of no use whatsoever. Continuing to study the physical evidence the universe provides, on the other hand, leads us to more knowledge.
I know which one I prefer.
I have an old book about mineralogy in my library. Its publcation date is in the 1840s. It's full of incorrect information that has been replaced with better information, but it was a primary textbook in its day. The first sentence of the first chapter of that book is: "We are to study minerals." That sentence always struck me as central to the scientific method. "We are to study the universe." In detail and in general. Why? Because there it is. It exists. It is our home. It benefits us to learn about it, in practical and other ways.
= new reply since forum marked as read