[The following link HERE presents an earlier stab at this same point.]
AXIOM 1: A characteristic which cannot be instantiated in nature should not be presumed to hold for nature as such.
POSTULATE 1: An object A cannot be in more than one place P at one time T. If A were in more than one place P at T, it would eo ipso cease to be a single object A. That is just what we mean by A being an object as opposed to two objects B and C. This is a basic characteristic of what it means to be a physically delimited (and thus quantifiable) object. A's objective unity allows for compossible, internal margins, but not noncontiguous, external boundaries.
CONSEQUENT 1 from AXIOM 1 + POSTULATE 1: Nature as a whole cannot be in two places at once, if for no other reason that there is no larger “space” in which nature can exist at this or that location. A further reason why nature as a whole can no more be in one place P than A can at a single T, is that A's objective existence in a presumed whole-nature at T would require A to be as objectively existent in some other whole-nature* at T, which, again, violates POSTULATE 1 and the unity of corporeal objects.
OBJECTION 1: Perhaps nature is infinite (and eternal) and therefore at all places (and all times) at once.
REPLY 1: An infinite quantity is a contradiction in terms, since a quantity is only possible by being physically, or even just conceptually, distinct from and delimited by some other quantity.
CONSEQUENT 2 from REPLY 1: Nature as a whole is not infinite and eternal. If it is, then it is no longer a physical reality, subject to quantification-mensuration.
POSTULATE 2: An infinitely thin surface cannot exist in nature. In our normal experience, the thinner something is, the sharper it is and the more easily and deeply it can cut into something else. But if we extend our mind along an infinitely thinner and thinner blade, we can quickly see that something goes wrong, as it were, in natural terms. For, while any surface asymptotically on its way towards infinity with indeed cut magnificently into physical reality, once it so to speak “reaches infinite thinness,” it will no longer cut anything, since an infinitely thin cut into something is physically equivalent to no cut at all. An infinitely small gap between two objects is actually no gap at all. When infinity is applied to nature as a presumably physical reality, we see that, to put it mildly, funny things happen.
CONSEQUENT 3 from POSTULATE 2 + AXIOM 1: Therefore, again, infinitely great––or minor––measures do not pertain to nature and natural objects, nor to nature as a whole. As such, it is illegitimate to refer to nature as a whole as both physical and infinite-eternal.
Someone can certainly refer to nature as "eternal," "infinite," and the like, but then it no longer seems the referent is nature, but supernature. The price, then, of naturalizing God is that of rendering nature incoherent for scientific, let alone naive exploratory, purposes.