Griggsy

Why do you find the supernatural even relevant to your life?
How does it explains matters that natural venues cannot? We naturalists do not find only science when truths but just rational ones based on empiricism. Rem B.Edwards faults us naturalisits for not considering the supernatural, which he claims covers the same territory as the natural, but it depends on convoluted ad oc asumptions whilst the presumption of naturalism just procedes from the sciences, which are its glory, despite fellowskeptic John L ,Schellenberg's dismissal of our relying on tentative science. And haughty John Haught begs the question when he demands that we should consider other venues of knowledge. We checked out the claims and found them wanting. Infirmed intuitions, revelations and other religious experience just fail to make their case.
How then can religion provide real hope when from scrutinizing it as we find prayers fail as a source of power, miracles are natural phenomnena and so forth.
People use it as inspiration, a crutch and platitude when they can use other means to use their own inner resources that naturally work without divine input.
Per Lamberth's reduced animism argument, why be superstitious when the addition of God adds no more value than do the many spirits of full animism or polytheism, and no category mistake ensues,because the point being that Nature itself needs no director.
How can God have referents pertaining to being the Grand Miracle Monger,Creator and so forth when no intent appears? Appeals to John Hick's epistemic distance argument that He makes evidence for Himself ambiguous when no intent for such rules per Lamberth's teleonomic/atelic argument and per Carneades's argument that all teleological arguments beg the question of agency?
Why then do you believe in Him, or why do you dismiss Him or why can't you make up your mind?