Skepticism can be out of scope.
Radical skepticism holds a strong position regarding evidence. For an extreme skeptic view, plausibility, relativism, holism and other forms of though are aberrations. Skeptics tend to ignore the impossible-to-prove things.
Skepticism should NOT get involved in judging paranormal concepts, such as life-after-death.
Neither should have a thing to do with emotional subjects like Love, passion, etc.
Love cannot be proven. That is a fact. Even skeptics must "believe" in Love. Some argue Love is proven by actions. But such statement is a fallacy because actions can have many motifs like convenience, duty, obligation, interest, etc. and it is impossible to prove Love.
Claiming for "proof" is then an aberration.
The same with the perennial discussion about very far space objects, galaxies, starts, etc. Their current existence CANNOT be proven. We see only the energies emitted by those objects thousands of years ago. Can we prove those far objects exist today? No.
Universal creation without a Creator! Very contradictory!
What cannot be proven is the possibility of something to exist in an organized form which does not origin from a creative effort.
The basic fundamental requisite for a SYSTEM to exist is: Purpose!
There cannot be a "system without purpose"...
If the Universe is a System of Systems, just like a human being or any living entity, they MUST have a purpose to exist, or should not be considered systems.
Theo Jansen speaks of "animal evolution" when speaking of his mechanical creations and their further "evolution" into different "species" of "Mecha-bots".
True evolution, understood not as simple change but as "change towards a increase in complexity and functionality" cannot happen without the creative mind behind..
Theo could "demonstrate" it , as seen by the "evolutionist minds" by dropping millions of tubes, nuts, links, hoses and bottles in a deserted island.
How long would it take to form one of his creeping "animals"?