Aquinas vs. Aquinas- naturalists win!

        Aquinas  beats himself with his superfluity argument that we should never use Deity as the overall explanation. Percy Bysshe Shelley  implicitly expounds it thusly:" To suppose that some existence above, or beyond them [ the descripions-laws- of Nature] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounte for.' And, not ti's no category mistake, which only begs the question thereof.
         People might as well pray to me! They'd receive the same responses,only I  declare I have no powers to change matters- honesty! Realized prayers are only post hoc- coincidental, and unanswered ones receive the theist unknown defense argumenwt- one from ignorance by means of rationalizations!
         To appeal to miracles as most theists do appeals actually to ignorance of  reality. When skepticcs investigate miracles, they only find natural forces at work,not because of bias but due to lack of facts for divine intent there, and the facts illustrating what actually happens. Too bad, that the Vatican relies on its faith-based panels to find those non-existent miracles, which should decline with medical advances. Why such matters as finding keys instead of overcoming any holocause? Why the silly Marian apparitions instead of having only one set of scriptures that are truthful? No, Dranges' argument from non-beliefs supports the superfluity argument! 
        To define God as goodness delivers the same dilemmas as the original Euthyphro does: it the goodness independent of Him or can He change it. and ti's another begged question anyway!
         Defining Him with omni-attributes, as cataphatic theology dies, without evidence for  them justs makes Him vacuous such that why, He cannot possibly exist!And by non-dfining Him as not this ,not that just defines Him into vacuity again1 Both sides lose!
          We know that Jews and others saved Jewry, so adding Him is extraneous as how could that ever be possible in light if the Holocaust?
          Science suffices as the sufficient reason itself as it fits the facts whereas God rests on convoluted, ad hoc  assumptions- His referents and attributes. And God did it as the Lamberth's God of the explanatory gap furthers explantion no better thn Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps. 
         To assuage any existential angst, despite the unsubstantiated Aquinas' argument from angst, people should seek therapy.  
         To prattle that why, without Him, we'e be so forlorn as then we'd have no purpose for living or doing right. What useless whining! Why would any rational person depend on that non-sequtur that,because no Deity gives us purpose, we then have no purposes. What an application of the all or nothing fallacy? We are our own purpose and we make others.
        Ti's then to deny humanity any dignity at all: it betrays us as His pottery when morality dictates that we owe Him nothing and He has no rights over us!That brands us as mere things!
         Theism in this matter inverts the truth when it laments that naturalism does that! Hardly.
         Naturalism regards us as part of Nature but  we do the ultimate valuing in ascribing great worth to ourselves. We don't, despite theistic insistence, become gods,taking matters egoistically into  our own hands. That again betrays humanity!
         To invoke Him as providing order and regularity and such  merely cannot gainsay the superfluity as Lamberth's argument from inherency claims that order, chaos, regularity and the descrioptions -laws- of Nature inhere in the Cosmos.
         Why, then the attempt ot overide the superfluity? Why, ti's the animist superstition. Lamberth's  reduced animism argues that theism is just reduced animism and thus relies on none evidenced supernatural intent. 
         How then can we not find intent? Ccience as the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument argues that why,science finds no divine intent, and thus Deity does not intervene in natural processes and thus is not Himself and thus cannot exist! Why, His attributes involving intent thus cannot exist, thus He cannot be the Creator and so forth and again He cannot exist. 
        How do theists find intent then? Per Lamberth's argument from pareidolia, theists discern intent and design when only causalism- mechanism- teleonomy exist  just as people see those Marian  apparitions or Yeshua on a tortilla.
           Thus for lack of intent also supports the superfluity as do the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism and Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham.
           People die from faith-healing and exorcism, and people murder due to that superfulity! That no there  there, That gargantuan superstiton!
           The misinterpretations of evidence to support that superfluity alone  should make one a gnu atheist but all the evils done in its name does gainsay all the good ,beause one can find that good elsewhere!
           Instead  of Him as the inspiration to get them to use their own inner resources, people can use inspiration from other sources; again, why ascribe power to that superfluity by denying ones own powers as the actual power involves, other than help from others?
             Definition without evidence, faith and postulation cannot instantiate Him- that square circle or married bachelor!
             And what then do you claim?