No, you ignore the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Then you commit the fallacy of reverse ad hominem to justify your position. Your faith is showing.
"Your attribution of "fallacy" is just that and nothing more. In reality there is no fallacy."
Yes, there is. You just refuse to recognize it.
"One has nothing to do with the other. Philosophical naturalism as you call it is reality. The universe is guided by rules and laws and nothing else."
Yes it does. Philosophical naturalism is assumed based on the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. That the universe is guided by rules and laws is the observation that you equate to philosophical naturalism through use of fallacy.
"Yes, I understand that you refuse to accept that and that you are, in fact, probably incapable of understanding it but that's not my problem; it is yours. If you believe so strongly that there is something more then surely you can provide proof."
Yes, I understand that you refuse to accept that and that you are, in fact, probably incapable of understanding it but that's not my problem; it is yours. Your demand for proof assumes that naturalistic laws can identify a non-naturalistic reality. That is a non-sequitur as well.
"But, of course, you can't."
This would be the negative proof fallacy. That your beliefs are true unless proven false. Since they are beliefs, however, it is impossible to prove beliefs false.
"Meanwhile, within the framework of reality (your philosophical naturalism) science readily self-corrects and is almost always right - in the end."
Again, philosophical naturalism cannot be empirically shown to equate to reality. It is an 'a priori' assumption based on the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. Science will never self-correct the underlying philosophical foundation and is almost always wrong - in the present.