[VadeRetro]

The distinction at the heart of the debate isn't between "natural" and "non-natural," but between "intentional" and "accidental."

I tend to think it's between "natural" and "magical."

And the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is misunderstood. That which exists--is real--is natural. "Non-natural" is actually synonomous with "unreal" or "untrue."

So far at least, "magic" is "unnatural" and is unreal and untrue. I see potential for agreement.

[sourcery]

So far at least, "magic" is "unnatural" and is unreal and untrue.

Yes. And as soon as something is proven to be real, it is no longer considered magical. In fact, many object to scientific investigation and analysis for precisely this reason: demystification removes the "magic."