a) The absolute truth means, that given unlimited research time and resources, the Riemann Hypothesis (if latter is true) would not be proven false.
No, I meant how do you define your concept of "truth" and in what circumstances do you say that "truth" also has the quality "absolute"?
b) The physics is incomplete not without "natural metaphysics" like poetry, but without "supernatural metaphysics" like God.
But God, as far as I can tell, exists only as a concept, or thing imagined, in individual brains. Otherwise, surely, there'd be a definition of God somewhere that was appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it were God or not. But there's no such definition.
c) The God surely exists for any fundamental theist, and God is undecided for atheists. Combining these two facts, one logically concludes, that God does exist for all.
Exists as a thing imagined, or as a concept, no problem. But as an aspect of reality, big problem.
As example, in the video above is said, that Riemann Hypothesis is true, if RH is undecided (unprovable).
Undecided means we don't know whether the Riemann hypothesis is true or not, but we don't know any in principle impediment to finding out.
Unprovable means we know that in principle the Riemann hypothesis can neither be shown to be true nor to be false.
Choose one.
Therefore, if God is undecided
You haven't told me what real thing the word "God" denotes.
but for theists He exists
That's a matter for theists. Why would it concern unbelievers?
then atheist should conclude, that God exists. In analogy with RH.
I see no analogy between the question of whether the Riemann hypothesis is solvable, and the question of what if any real thing the word "God" is intended to denote.
Let alone where Gödel's incompleteness theorems might come into it.
1. The reality has sense [There is law of reality: Aristotle's Logic. Due to it the reality is logical, thus, has sense.
What do you mean by that? That nature is an entity capable of thought and reason?
Or that human brains are capable of comprehending reality?
2. Science is part of reality.
Strictly speaking, "science" is a concept, hence found only in individual brains. But it's true that scientists are real, and their observations and data gathering about reality are real.
3. Science has absolutely no sense, if it can not answer all questions.
Science never claimed to "answer all questions", only to explore and describe reality and seek to explain it. Since the conclusions of science are based on empiricism and induction, they're always tentative, never absolute at all ─ though that doesn't stop science from being remarkably useful. It's the utility of the results that in the end justifies science, not any pretense to have access to total knowledge.
If the complete picture is missing, then the Flat Earthers could be right: the see round Earth as hallucination, or evil deception.
The complete picture is, on all the present evidence, never going to be available (and if it nonetheless is, we'd have no way of knowing whether what we know was in fact complete or not). Meanwhile the earth is not flat. So your statement is not correct.
So can I. But as you know, neither of us will get an answer because God never says or does. If God did, Riemann would just have to ask his dad, who was a Lutheran clergyman, who would just have to ask God, and we'd have had the answer right after the question.
Thus, Science becomes complete.
Nope.
The Science has missed to get one Scientist: God.
That's like saying the US Marines are missing one Marine, Superman. It's a cheerful thought, but it doesn't work in reality.
