But you are expecting physical proof of a non physical being, there is cause and effect but you are expecting if not demanding that cause to be purely physical.<quoted text>
For natural born fence sitters, yes. Thousands of years worth of complete lack of proof pretty well satisfies me. Otherwise you must completely consider and accept as entirely possible that my toaster flies around the kitchen at night and my invisible pink unicorn is happily grazing grass in my back yard as I type this.
As Wilderide pointed out succinctly, skepticism requires no faith.
You can say that skepticism requires no faith, but the skeptic expects to consistantly find failure (like the moron here who posts under that name)or no physical proof that they themselves can touch, see, hear, taste or feel.
You have marxist 'critical theory' which tries to validate itself as skepticism but cannot be because it seeks to redefine the meanings of effects in order to get the desired negative result.