Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

Except that you're not actually proposing adherence to scientific standards as evidenced by your prior post.  When the cause is supernatural, the ultimate cause is somehow critical to scientific inquiry.  But when the subject is gravity, suddenly the ultimate metaphysical cause is irrelevant.  I'm pointing out your inconsistency, which your latest claim of adherence to and support of the scientific method does nothing to resolve.

False. Was looking for something simple so you can understand this, so took the explanation(s) from Study.com, which I'm hoping we can agree that they're sharing for the sake of teaching and learning without regard for adding bias.  Page I'm using is linked there.

"Natural laws arise from the process known as the scientific method. The scientific method is the systematic study of the natural world through experimentation and observation. This method provides scientists with a rigorous framework to objectively study the natural world. Using the scientific method, natural laws can be verified through experiments conducted by independent observers."

(Already said this, but apparently it wasn't good enough.  It can be tested, repeated, and applied within the natural world and for scientific study.)

And of course here is an example on the same page using Newtons Law of Universal.

"When natural laws are mentioned, one of the more common scientific disciplines that comes to mind is physics. Laws in physics include concepts such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law describes the attractive gravitational force (F) that exists between two masses (M sub 1 and M sub 2). Here is the law of universal gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation: "

Well, I don't agree with you there, or your characterization of the value of your prior citation. But let's take a different tack to see if we can add light on the subject. How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

(As a parenthetical, I'll note that your example of Newtonian gravity says nothing about the underlying metaphysics of gravity. Did they err, and simply omit the necessary metaphysical qualifications?)