Nature has to compete with a deity however imperfect he might be. We put our convenience partly in importance when we go to discover nature or a deity. We strikingly leave the panorama of nature to a scientific experiment waiting for nature to unfold herself in a way it deems to fit the experiment. There is not much room left for us to discover what we believe. But in the terms of religion we don’t have an experiment but led again by pure belief system to produce the system what we believe in. So the beliefs is what we discover are those what we think. Nature we have sought in science is what we have believed in and to defend it we term as the laws of nature. Newton or Einstein discovered what he thought not what the creator deems to think if there is one. Without a creator or a deity it is pretty obvious what we have discovered is what we have thought matching to what we have perceived so we have an illusion of knowledge.
So the question nature versus deity is a trivial question that has held significant importance in our scheme of things. In other words we are always at crossroads with our beliefs as is it a pure intuition of religion or mathematics or a scientific measurement of natural science it hardly matters what is the outcome. It had been painstakingly conserved our a period of time. So the true knowledge is the one that we transcend the universe or transcendental knowledge, The knowledge possessed by a deity when outside of the universe. Which could lead us to believe that without believing in a deity it is difficult to transcend and hence difficult to acquire true knowledge.