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

[Belacqua]

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

I think you need a few more steps in your argument to reach this conclusion.

You've posited this, as far as I can see, on the fact that there are regularities in nature which we call "laws." These laws, apparently, point to certain ends. 

So far so good. Aristotle long ago argued that the structure and nature of a thing "points to" certain outcomes. These outcomes, as far as I can tell, are what you are calling "purposes." So the purpose, in this sense, of an acorn is a mature oak tree. 

Now suppose we agree with all that, but we see the structure and nature of the universe as inevitably pointing toward heat death. Heat death thus becomes the "purpose" of the universe. (And I know that heat death isn't proved yet, but we can take it as an example.) 

I still don't see why we need to bring in the word "divine" or "God" in order to see structures and natures pointing to certain ends. It works just as well without putting God into it. 

that is what all the other theologies are grasping at when they talk of God.

I'm wary of blanket statements like this. ALL other theologies? Is this in the Vedas? Is it in all forms of Buddhism? I'll withhold judgment on this one. 

Second, just because theology attributes the laws of nature to God doesn't mean there's any reason for us to use that term. 

As I understand it, the laws or principles of nature are necessary but not sufficient in many arguments for a God or something like a God. Aristotle doesn't just say that because things point in a certain way, therefore there is a God. He needs many additional steps to get to a First Cause, and what he describes certainly isn't obvious from the fact that acorns point to mature trees. (His God is basically just Thought, thinking itself.) 

The Stoics and Neoplatonists, roughly speaking, see the laws of nature as the Logos, which is an emanation of the One. The One is similar in many ways to the Christian God (and became more so when the Christians started stealing Neoplatonic ideas) but again, they don't assume that the existence of a Logos is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the One. 

So I think your assertion that the universe is and acts a certain way, and points to certain ends, is fairly easy to get to. Again, I'm not sure it's true, but it's something a lot of reasonable people believe without reference to things divine. But your conclusion that we should call this God is so far undemonstrated, as far as I can see.