not me. i hear that sometimes. there is already something of a definition of god, and calling a tree god, or nature god, just confuses the issue. nature is not even just one thing. we see it as a big clump of... nature, but it's a combination of many things. there is no need even to clump it together and call it nature; putting a word to it that also indicates something supernatural just makes it worse. no god is love for me; call love love and call god a fictional character. no god is nature for me; call nature nature, if we must, and don't call god at all. he won't answer, you know!

g

No, that sounds like philosophical lamarckism - attributing what you don't know to some unseen force in order to match what you wish were true

God is an abstraction invented by humans. Some humans use a different abstraction than the most typical (invisible, personal, interventionist supernatural being not a part of the natural world). Some prefer to make god some aspect or manifestation of nature or consciousness. This has the advantage that such gods are at least theoretically falsifiable, and the disadvantage that no evidence exists for them either.

I am with @Juggler67 that it's generally inadvisable to use the word "god" for something quite different than what most people mean. However, it's popular to do so because people tend to want to salvage some sort of god-concept for themselves, to avoid the stigma of atheism and/or the full integration of their own mortality into their awareness, etc.

No, I think you are overthinking and getting muddled. There is no god....get the idea out of your head, it is an invention of man. We have man and we have nature, and man should take care of and enjoy it.