Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

[Happy Skeptic wrote:]
If the world included magic, science would be able to study it.  If it included miracles, science would be able to identify them and categorize under what conditions they happened, and create hypotheses about what might induce another "miracle" to happen.

[and you agreed:]

most of us are not philosophers at all [...] keep asking for evidence rather than one argument piled on top of another.

Here you show that although you are not a philosopher, you are still committed to metaphysical naturalism. 

Because when you ask for evidence, you are asking for the kind of thing that science would be able to study. And if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.