In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
Theists get the first step.
Theists rarely get the second step, often failing to provide even an adequate and self-consistent model of a god much less what specific implications arise from its existence. If you think you have please reply to this. Again, if you think you have verifiable observable evidence of the existence of a self-consistent model of a god please reply. Adhering to the opinion that gods exist when no verifiable observable evidence is recorded in all of human history is perverse. Perversely adhering to an opinion is obstinate.