That is simply because you approach the text with an anti-supernatural presupposition, which is neither historically justified, nor demanded by "science" but is pure prejudice. Your comments on Daniel are similiar There is no "reason" to approach a book that openly presents a supernatural view of the universe with anti-supernatural rubrics already in place. That is, unless your object is to avoid at all costs any compelling universal truths which may have a claim on your commitment to your own cosmic independence.
I just think that it is a lot more likely to have someone pretend to have predicted something, than it is to have a supernatural being hand unknowable information down.
Other people have analyzed the book of Daniel, and the language appears to match the Maccabees timeframe better than the reign of Belshazzar ect. Now if you care for the supernatural explanation, the supernatural being could have emulated the language of 172BC in addition to providing 325BC data.
That is the problem with supernatural based religions. Jam yesterday, Jam tomorrow, but never Jam today.