How to select which supernatural to believe?

[Angrboda]

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that you want to agree to disagree as your way of saying you're too febrile to simply admit you were wrong.  Number three here isn't an open door so much as it isn't a door at all.  The literature possessing characteristics similar to other literature that is not historical tells us nothing about how we "should" treat it, so you're wrong in that as well.

Wrong about what?  That atheistic naturalism is falsifiable?  

You are wrong in concluding that those would falsify naturalism and demonstrate the supernatural. You can't assume that you've accounted for all natural means of achieving the effect and so you can't therefore conclude that the effect was achieved through means that aren't natural. To argue otherwise is to say that you have complete knowledge of the possible natural means and the achievement of the effect could not be obtained through them. You don't have complete knowledge of the possible means, so you can't conclude that the effect was not achieved naturally. The means of the effect are simply unknown; they might be natural and then they might not be natural -- it's inconclusive. Acupuncture was similarly dismissed as hocum because the given explanation did not correlate with reality as known. Once it was shown that acupuncture appeared to have real effects, people began looking for a valid mechanism. They didn't just stick their fingers in their ears and say, "La la la, I can't hear you," or what you have done by declaring, "Aha, I don't know how it works, therefore it's supernatural!" That's nothing more than bad and incompetent thinking.

As for the historical record, historians often speak of probabilities; for instance, that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical individual and was crucified by Pontius Pilate is very highly certain; that he rose corporeally from the dead, went to Britain to preach, and after that, went to North America to preach to the North American Indians is far, far less certain, so uncertain, that I dismiss it, even though such is found in the historical record

That's nice. That justifies being uncertain as to the historicity of those events, not that one should view them as ahistorical. Historians come to the conclusion that the historicity of those events is uncertain, not that they are ahistorical. Since historians don't do what you did by declaring them ahistorical, your citing the practice of historians as justification is not valid or useful. Historians don't form the same sort of conclusion you did so citing them doesn't abet what you said. Dismissing them doesn't require a judgment as to the historical content of the accounts and so your dismissing them is not relevant or informative. What would be informative and relative would be your giving a rational justification for dismissing them as ahistorical. But you haven't given one yet. To put a bow on it, there is a difference between treating uncertain claims with skepticism, and denying uncertain claims due to their uncertainty. The former is proper skeptical practice. The latter is described as pseudo-skepticism by many as it has the appearance of proper skepticism while lacking the actual substance. If you google "pseudo-skepticism" you can probably find an article or two on the subject.

That a human being could, in advance, predict the exact head/tails outcome, in advance, of 100 coin tosses (or, 1000 or 10,000) and have that event ascribed to naturalistic causes is, in my opinion, abjectly absurd.  I see no reason to discuss that further.

That's swell. When you have something better than a fallacious argumentum ad lapidem then feel free to send me a postcard.