Supernaturalists insist that there exists a realm beyond Existence that interacts with it, but which we naturalists cannot investigate.
When supernaturalist aver that miracles, the Virignal Birth, the Resurrection and so forth happen, then perforce we can investigate them, and having done so, we find no evidence therefore. Where we cannot investigate, where a theory is unfalsiable like supernaturalism, then it is meaningless.
That is part of ignosticism.
John Haught avers that we naturalists a priori to avoid other venues of knowing ,but he begs the question. Rem B. Edwards avers that we beg the question in not discerning that supernaturalism also accounts for what naturalism does, but no, because the former depends on convoluted ad hoc assumptions, violating the Razor.
John L.Schellenberg, fellow atheist, claims that we naturalists rely on changing science. But that is science's glory!. Science confirms naturallism in its on-going undertakings for knowledge as we naturalists find that whilst such as evolution is quite true, aspects of it are tentative. We are searchinf for the truth, not preaching the Truth.
Supernaturalists and other prattle that we are scientistic, but no, we don't just rely on science but on any rational method, which perforce excludes the supernatural.
How do you justify ontological [philosphical] naturalism? Or why do you reject it?