It’s not uncommon to see arguments stating that God is not necessary to explain the natural world. That one could just as easily give explanations using nothing but naturalistic processes. I agree that one could explain things without such an entity; but providing such explanations is not an argument against God. Here’s why:

Imagine you are working with a computer. You input some numbers and recorded the following outputs:

1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 4
5 = 5
6 = 126

You attempt to figure out the rule with which it responds, and after some thought come up with the following:

If n, then (n - l) (n - 2) (n - 3) (n - 4) (n - 5) + n

You then proceed to test the rule with numbers 7 and 8 and get matching results. However, the programmer now comes and tells you that your rule is wrong. The rule is actually:

If n, then (n - l)(n - 2)(n - 3)(n - 4) (n - 5) + (2n - n)

Notice that both equations are logically equivalent. However, only one represents the reality of the transformational procedures (Flanagan, 1991).

Conclusion: Explanations are always abundant. You can explain the whole of reality without putting God into the equation; but having done so does not mean you have accurately represented reality. To claim victory because you can predict or explain a phenomenon, does not imply it is the explanation by which reality has produced that phenomenon.

References:

Flanagan, O. (1991). The science of the mind (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.