What, really is wrong with a naturalistic explanation?

“But wait,” continues a skeptical critic. “Throughout these answers you have constructed a lot of Just So Stories to fit the hypothesis that God exists and acted as described in Genesis. But are not all the puzzling details of the text much more elegantly explained by saying, ‘Clearly, it was all simply made up?’ Can you submit any non-question-begging reasons against such a naturalistic approach?” Typically, nothing at all is wrong with naturalistic explanations. Elegant and naturalistic explanations are usually the best because the universe works according to rationally describable natural laws—when God is not involved. When God is involved in the events and working “wonders,” as the Bible puts it, then of course naturalistic explanations are not appropriate. Since the Bible concerns the movement of God in the universe, obviously it features many supernatural explanations. If you do not believe the Bible, then just as obviously the preferable explanation of the details of the text is, “Clearly, it was all simply made up.” And if you are genuinely not sure, if you are torn, then the mere availability of naturalistic explanations for how the text reads is not going to settle the matter. In short, it is actually the skeptic who begs the question if he infers from “A naturalistic explanation for how the text reads is available” to “The Bible is just carefully contrived fiction.”