Your position on naturalism

[robvalue]

I hold to a kind of philosophical naturalism. Things only exist as something, not as super-somethings. If things act in ways that their something "can't" do (e.g. 'miraculously'), then either it is a previously unknown ability of that thing, or it is the action of some other thing able to do that act within/through the original thing, or some combination of the two.

That's the most sensibly argued position I've seen a theist take on this subject. You've nailed it there. I guess most theists need some stuff to be "super", they can't just have ordinary old stuff.

I only take the methodological stance to avoid a burden of proof. But I agree that it is a semantic game the supernatural peddler plays.