I have often thought that if 20th century science tried to ram home the logical necessity of atheism, 21st century science rams home the logical necessity of agnosticism being the ground level, so to speak. If we, tiny as we still are, can even conceive of a practical way to simulate a universe (and what is truly the difference between "simulate" and "create" in the end?), how can we in good conscience fully rule out the idea that we are in fact in a simulation, and that whoever it is that is simulating us is in every reasonable sense a lower-case-d deity? They may be leaving us alone, ignorant of our existence (perhaps they only care about the large-scale results and we are but a blip), etc etc the entire well explored set of possible philosophical deities, but how can we confidently proclaim that none of them exist?
In the 20th century, one could be ignorant and scoff at the idea that Mankind might ever create a universe, and therefore scoff by extension at the idea that anyone or anything else could either... but now we know better. We've got universe prototypes already in production as ongoing commercial concerns (far more than mere theory!), at various stages of incredible primitiveness, but prototypes nonetheless. Rather than a massive leap, it is now merely logical progression that something, somewhere in some reality may actually have the knowledge and the resources to have "created" our universe, for some value of the term "created".
(I speak here of science in the vague philosophical movement sense. As much as it would like to claim total philosophical neutrality, there are certain Opinions that are Had.)