All we see and know is natural phenomena as our world is the natural world. If someone claims there is phenomena that is not natural then the burden of proof is on them to show it.
These are definitions.
At first, yes, just as would most religious people actually. But if sufficient and observable, testable and repeatable evidence were produced then it's likely people would change their minds, as they have done across history and in the history of science itself.
As far as we know, yes, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Altering and damaging parts of the brain is known to affect personality and other mental functions, providing further evidence that the mental faculties are dependent on the brain. There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the mind has some supernatural component or origin.
As far as we know there are not. Indeed, by definition one could say that if anything exists in the universe then it must be natural as there is precisely no evidence for anything outside the universe and physical reality.
If nature is defined as physical reality then we can agree with that statement given that there's no evidence for anything external to nature.
No evidence for such forces.
Not necessarily. Theories don't appear overnight, they usually are years in the making so the evidence will be taken into account and compared to more of it that's found and will be incorporated if it makes sense and dropped if it doesn't.
The laws of nature are scientific laws, yes.
Yes, relative to our understanding of a particular law of course.
A rather vague statement. Science helps explain the natural world, but there are many mundane situations where science as such is not needed to prove something is true. CCTV and recording devices as well as objects such as documents etc can all prove something happened without having to invoke science per se.
Again, this is rather simplistic. I guess at their core you could say they oppose each other as one asks you to believe without seeing and the other purports that only that which can be tested and observed is real. However, religions across history have adopted scientific principle, either through choice or by force and religionists tend to employ the scientific method to any other religion that isn't their own.
That is a definition of faith, yes, and the one most commonly used in discussions of this nature.
Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.
Yes, laws are just the way they are, this much is obvious.
In its early development, science indeed had to free itself from the shackles of religion to advance, in the West at least.
Not necessarily.
Why are you asking me to determine what someone else should believe about their holy book?
Not necessarily.
Don't agree. Also, it's more conducive to a debate to ask someone a few questions at a time, not bombard them with 20 million.