You don't have to be an atheist not to believe in what you propose. And, it's not clear what you mean by "universal law", which may or may not be related to a so-called Prime Mover, or God.
Universal laws don't preach anything, they are functioning because they are there, just complex masses of energies relating or clashing with other celestial objects.
Human laws, on the other hand (moral and otherwise), have been promulgated and propagated by temporal, all too human authorities, like Christianity etc.
Together, they try to give humanity a further, invisible sense of purpose to our thoughts and actions., with laws or injunctions believed to originate from a silent, invisible 'God' who is beyond our questioning.
The questioner suggest the idea of an "amalgam" (a mixture) of universal law/s and a Supreme Being, creator of everything existing. We, terrestrials, believers or not, differentiate between the 'two'; that is, God's laws, as imparted to humanity only, that never really included the universe as we know it now. Therefore we can't confuse or mix our imparted human beliefs' with laws of an 'inhuman' universe, which is only the concern of Science, or scientific laws, and which exclude human morality. Nevertheless, humanity and the universe have a lot in common (same universal 'space', same basic material), but human laws (spiritual/moral) are presumably ordained by 'our' God, though many of us now believe that they don't relate to a God. Nothing related our human laws to the laws of the universe, which are largely only chemical phenomena moved, presumably, by unconscious
The God of the Bible also states that God created the 'heaven and the earth'. We, as humans, 'think' of 'heaven' as the otherworldly 'paradise', or at worst, the sky above. But we now know that the Earth is just another planet among thousands of others, and not the first created in isolation.
To close my (would be) explanations, I wish to confess that suddenly I have a feeling that I was not as clear as I would have wished (limited visible space for the whole is a problem), but I hope I have managed to make the point that I disagree with what the questioner proposed. That is: no "amalgam" possible as far as I am concerned..