The law of gravity is not physical. I will try to explain it better without repeating myself. As science is structured, it makes observations of the physical world, and these observations then allow someone to infer some law that explains these observations. When someone says they observe the law of gravity, they do not mean they physically see the the law of gravity. They mean they see the effects of the law of gravity. Another way to describe it is by talking about numbers. Numbers exist as concepts. I cannot point under a chair and say, "there is the number 2". I can draw a number 2, but drawing something does not mean it exists. As you alluded to, the law of gravity is an equation, and equations are composed of numbers and mathematical symbols, both of which lack physical existence. In the way I say numbers lack physical existence, I would also say equations, and hence the law of gravity lacks physical existence.

If you notice, I am talking about the law of gravity and not the force of gravity. My point in my original post was that the law of gravity and scientific laws, in general, have no physical existence. They are just means of explaining the physical world. They are not actually in the physical world. This holds true for all concepts, and I was referring to the law of gravity when I said "gravity as a concept". Just think of things like justice, kindness, hatred. We can think of examples of these words, but we would not say justice physically exists somewhere.

When I said that orderliness and rationality can be quantifed, I was referring to the teleological fine-tuning argument. The main point is that there are quantifiable values and constants that had to be within a narrowly defined set of parameters at the beginning of the universe in order for a habitable universe to develop. When I say values, I mean things like the ratio of electrons to protons, the gravitational constant, and the strength of strong and weak nuclear forces. All these can be measured and quantified. There are a number of videos on youtube with people explaining it better than me. I recommend William Lane Craig if you are interested.

Its a little long-winded, but I hope that helps. Just as a note, I am not denying gravity or taking shots at science. I was just showing that there are quite a few things that we would say existed while they do not have any true physical existence.

I don't see how you can relate a law of science, essentially a mathematical explanation of an observation, to God. Science observes, hypothesises and then tests against physical  evidence. You simply cannot do the last step when hypothesising that God created the universe.

As for the teleological fine-tuning argument, it largely falls apart due to the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle essentially states that if the universe was not perfect for life then we would not be able to observe it. Hence if there are a large number of universes (which currently seems very likely) then only universes with the perfect parameters would ever be observed.

A god doesn't have to be sentient for people to believe in it as there are plenty of pantheists. God = nature. God is in everything, etc. 

However, a painter is not a painting and an architect is not a building. In the same way, the creator can not be part of the creation. 

This would mean trees, rocks, eagles, etc cannot be a god. I don't think it limits physics from being a god though. 

What I think would limit physics from being a god is that its a set of rules that will always behave in a particular way. So physics is not a god because physics is a force, a law, or a rule book. However, a god could be described as whatever entity, separate from the creation, that is in control of physics, chemistry and biology and determines how they function. This entity could, perhaps, change these rules as they see fit.

The only thing I am comparing is the non-physical nature of God and a law of science. This was the point of my last post and is the only relationship I am drawing. I am just comparing one characteristic of God with one characteristic of a scientific law. I am hardly trying to put the two on equal footing. I am quite certain the anthropic principle just says the universe is suitable for life, not perfect. Personally, I never found the anthropic principle very satisfactory as a form of explanation. Its essentially just saying, "we are alive, therefore we live in a place that is suitable for us living here". I would not even qualify this as an explanation at all. The only way the anthropic principle even functions as an explanation is in conjunction with the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory also has its problems though. The primary one is we cannot view another universe. This is where the question about the simplicity of God's mind enters the deabte. Because we cannot have any direct observational evidence of God or the multiverse, we have to find out which one is simpler.

Why do you say it seems likely that there are a large number of universes?

True, but I was just using the generalisation to get my point across.

I have a feeling something may have been lost in translation here but I may be wrong.

Saying something is invisible due to it's physical properties is absolutely different from saying there is no physical evidence of it.

There is lots of physical evidence of the existance of human thought as outlined above.  The fact that we will never be able to 'see' thoughts the way we can see a bird or a tree, does not disprove there physical nature nor lessen the weight of physical evidence proving there existance. 

There is at this time, as far as I am concerned, no such compelling evidence for the existance of a God.

Yes but the human thought itelf doesnt have a physical evidence. And that is my point. Of course, we can track thoughts and see how they work and where they work, but we dont actually have visual or physical evidence of a human thought.

You seem to be trying to equate visual with physical evidence, and they are just not even close to being the same thing.  I honestly think you are misapprehending people's meaning when they say 'physical evidence'.

What would you consider 'physical evidence' in this context?

I do not think he is equating visual and physical evidence. Visual evidence is a subset of physical evidence though. His point is that there is no direct physical evidence of a human thought. I cannot see, touch, or hear another person's thought in the same way I can see, touch, or hear (if I knock on it) the chair sitting in my room. The proof of a human thought is going to be through indirect physical evidence. For instance, I could carry on a conversation with you, and then I could infer that thoughts are responsibe for what you are saying. However, I cannot directly observe a human thought and point it out to you, but I could point out the effects of a human thought. He is simply talking about direct physical evidence while you are talking about indirect or inferential physical evidence. I think both of you are right, but you are talking about two different things.

You are right, i wanted to say that there is no physical evidence for a human thought, as in, we cant see it or take it out for an example. So i guess i was looking for a visual evidence of a human thought not the evidence for its activity or existance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.