So, in either way we have a theory, a man-made creation, that "explains" the world around us. Except that more people agree on gravity than on God for obvious reasons: gravity always gives consistent results; our appeal to, or defiance of, God doesn't. So, while we can predictably subject gravity to test, God is not readily verified by experiments.
The result is that we know what will gravity do, while with God nothing is certain. Thus, our "belief" in gravity is actually a certitude for all practical purposes, while our belief in God is "substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen," [Heb 11:1].
Gravity is part of this world; God isn't. Gravity affects the world physically. God affects us spiritually. From gravity we learn that things fall; from God we learn mercy, love, justice, etc., "things" not subject to physical laws or evident in nature.
Apples and oranges, as I said.
Yes. So, while we can predictably subject gravity to test, God is not readily verified by experiments.
That is true, but it is because the theological fact that God cannot be tested is a part of that very theory of God.
Gravity is part of this world; God isn't. Gravity affects the world physically. God affects us spiritually.
Indeed, the symmetry only goes so far as the dynamics of knowledge: in either case we have faith and build up a theory from faith. Faith in science precedes science and faith in God precedes religion. But you are correct that religion and science are fundamentally different in that science relates to the created world and religion -- to the Creator.