Why Atheism is Incoherent & You Aren't as Smart as You Think You Are

[Seax]

Welcome. You raise some interesting questions.

I am not talking about the Judeo-Christian spook of a bearded man in the sky, I'm talking about the the laws of nature themselves.

This is a little bit of a straw man, since educated Christians don't believe in the bearded guy either. Christianity for grownups, with God as ground of being, God as Logos, etc., is not so far from what you're describing. Basically, educated Christians say that God is much as you describe him, plus infinity. They don't want to say that God is equal to and contiguous with the universe, for various reasons. 

It does look as though a lot of less-educated Christians stick with the cartoon version, and this is certainly the type that a lot of anti-religion people spend their time complaining about. 

But I think that's not your main topic here.

If nature is deterministic, and one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that it is, then we must assume that the rise of life from proteins, and the ever upward development, through struggle, of life from these early proteins to complex, highly advanced lifeforms like men has been predetermined by the very laws of nature themselves. Nature then is not meaningless, without purpose, but has goals and ends. 

This may be true; I don't know. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea. 

The laws of nature themselves are an expression of God. [...] Nature; the universe, is directed by Divine Will. That is what the laws of nature, whether they be the laws of gravity, chemistry or biology, are; the Will of God!

This part, I think, could use further explication. 

Let's say for the moment that the laws of nature point in one direction, and that it is fair to use the word "determined," and even "purpose." We'd be defining "purpose" as that end toward which the laws of nature inevitably point. 

How do we get from saying "the universe has a purpose" to "this purpose is the will of God"? Isn't it simpler just to have a natural purpose without God? 

And if there is a good reason for calling the laws of nature God, does this add anything to our understanding? For example, would it suggest any of the traditional aspects of religion, like prayer or revelation? Or would it leave us, practically speaking, as we are now, with the addition of calling nature God?

Excellent questions! The short answers are yes, no and the final question is really two. 'Are we accepting a natural, as opposed to supernatural view of the universe,' and 'Does understanding that nature is God change anything about how we should view the world?' Yes and yes.

There have always been men that want to put themselves above the rest of nature to satisfy their egos (nowhere is this more apparent than in the creationist objection to man's natural origin as a primate). This is not a natural and universal instinct, and I suspect it is probably learned. In Ancient Greece Plato found man's bipedalism & featherlessness more distinctive than his mind, as although the Greek philosophers believed in a fixed (as opposed to an evolving) universe, they saw no fundamental separation between humans and animals. It was only after Diogenes showed Plato a plucked chicken that he thought to include intellect in his definition of man.

In their quest to elevate themselves above the natural world, this natural purpose in nature was turned into an external, anthropomorphic god with a special love for mankind and a consciousness and personality of the kind we have. Man created in his mind a man to rule over the natural world. This personal monotheistic 'God' is a egotistical parody of the true God; the universe.

Why call nature God? Because that is what all the other theologies are grasping at when they talk of God.