Skepticism

           We skeptics apply methodological naturalism to matters; we full skeptics find that it presents no evidence for the supernatural and thus, God doesn't exist, making the empirical argument.
           Supernaturalists can prattle all they want, but never have they produced evidence for other venues of knowledge. Haughty John Haught ,therefore, begs the question thereof. Intuition, revelation, traditions hardly quality as valid methods; intuition has to come from knowledge to be right or else, it will be disconfirmed, revelations are only people's own imaginations at work and traditions can err .
             How then could Haught be against any paranormal matter as the paranormal rests on the same false methods?
             We can do better without the superstitions of the supernatural and the paranormal! We full skeptics find that morality stems from our evolved moral sense that we do refine, and we base it ontologically in our nature. Theistic moralities are just simple, mainly egregious  rants of mere men. Some even approach our humanistic one when theists use reason and facts instead of whims and preferences.
                   Supernaturalists must deliver evidence, not  definition,intuition faith, postulation andpresuppositional theology.We have no sensus divinatus, despite the evil John Calvin and Alvin Plantinga, sophist- no sense of the divine.
                      Misinterpretation of evidence that the supernaturalists deliver ranks as nothing;  they must deliver real evidence. They misinterpret mechanism and patterns with the pareidolias^ of teleology and design. They misinterpret the parameters as evidence for fine-tuning and they misinterpret the Big Bang as creation instead of  transformation of eternal energy.
                         They misinterpret incompleteness of science with their Henry Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps and add the supernatural as the overarching, ultimate explanation with the Lamberth the God of the explanatory gap.
                           Keith Parsons, fellow atheologian, finds :"Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation." Yes, the occult contradicts real explanations.
                            We have no need of that superfluity!^
                               What do you think?



                              
                               ^ Lamberth's the argument from pareidolia
                               ^the Aquinas-Shelley superfluity argument