A convoluted logic can be twisted to “prove” anything. Anyone who has studied Philosophy remembers the joke that Hume played upon the Philosophical World by “proving” in his “Critique of Reason” that effects do not follow from causes. But the real joke was that, while he was laughing about it, many philosophers actually took him quite seriously and thought that they were compelled by logic from then and forever more to give up on any primitive notions they once had that there was such a thing as Cause and Effect.
So somebody using Philosophy to “prove” there is no Supernatural Reality is very much akin to the joke of philosophically proving there is no Cause and Effect. And people who think they must believe such logic are equally silly.
What is the refutation? Empirical Reality. What do you need Philosophy for when you can be presented with the Fact of the Supernatural. Philosophy may be of use in areas where only speculation can be brought to bare, such as when talking about what color hair ‘blonds’ have in a parallel universe. But in a Real World, observation often reveals quite enough by itself, without using an overheated intellect to convince us we can no longer believe what we see in front of us. Such was the state of the Intellectual World when Hume convinced his fellows that causation was illusory. When Dr. Johnson was asked how Hume’s Argument could be refuted, he simply kicked a rock across the road. Likewise, to demonstrate the Supernatural we have only to refer to one of thousands of documented instances of the Supernatural. The best proofs there are in the histories of the Catholic or the Hindu and Sufi Saints.
-