(forgive me for not reading all 11 pages of the discussion)

The assertion that "nature cannot organize things itself" contains several fallacies. The article's author places an anthropomorphic emphasis on "Mother Nature," suggesting a non-corporeal intelligent force similar to his definition of God. Second, it ignores and oversimplifies the complex scientific laws that have been shown to "organize things." Case in point: gravity. Gravity is largely responsible for the order and shape of the universe on the macro level. A complex gravitational system will tend to rotate about its center and form a sphere or disc shape, depending on the size, mass, and physical makeup of the system.

This we have observed, and correspondingly, we have constructed paradigms to closely map (and predict) how these systems behave in nature. The 'holes' in any theory (and know that theological dogma is not theory, nor even hypothesis) result from the progressive nature of Human comprehension - true science is still young; it is a relatively new tool considering the thousands of years of civilization and millions of years of evolution...

Every force in nature is a demonstration that nature "organizes things itself."

Certainly we cannot "disprove" God's existence, considering its critical role in a popular paradigm. However, the paradigm from which God was born has long since extinguished its practical relevance. Scientific as well as moral axioms can exist without a God.


Afterthought: we also cannot pick and choose what scientific axioms are "true." There are processes by which we can determine that a certain description is more or less accurate than a competing description, i.e the scientific method.