Why should one beieve or disbelieve in the supernatural?
What counts as evidence for it? We naturalists-rationalists find none. Why, none can present it self, because that would go agianst our conservation of knowedge. Nature presents no divine intent as Lamberth's teleonomic argument notes and thus cannot affirm His very existence but can affirm that no divine intent presents itself so that as active God, He cannot exist! Alexander Smoltczyk states that He is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person, but without being an entity or a person, how could He make Himself that very explanation?That is more theological shenanigans just as is Paul Tillich calling Him the Ground of Being or Geing Itself!
Also, none can exist,because despite John Hick's epistemic distance argument, no ambiguity exists to view any matter as teological.
How could He function when per Reichenbach's argument from Existence that Existence is all, no transcendence exists behnd or beyond it. No one can do probability statements or fine-tuning arguments,because nothing exists with which to compare it! And supernaturalists beg the question of directed outcomes to make all teleological arguments. The argument from reason and to design are the other two. The former argues that as we all depend on reason to reach the truth, how can natural selection, without that Divine Director, favor our finding truth? What an absurdity? Obviously, those who survived had truth on their side. Now, by trial and error and with instruments we find the truth. Would Alvin Plantinga aver then that, as he does in the problem of evil, perhaps the Devil makes for errors? No! So much for obscurantism!
The argument to design uses the pareidolias of intent and design to find the designer when reality only presents teleonomy and patterns. Science finds only teleonomy- causalism- mechanism-no directed outcomes instead of vitalism-- directed outcomes and patterns instead of designs. Scientists are studying why and how people find non-existent patterns, and pareidolia of design for patterns. This is Lamberth's argument from pareidolia.
Per Angeles's argument, cause,event and time presuppose previous ones, an thus no God the Big Banger is needed. And science finds no need for God the Sustainer as the quantum fielfs whence comes universes, in accordance with the law of conservation, exist eternally! To bring is God one uses Deus ex machina - the man behind the curtain! That curtain obfuscates reality!