As long as we agree there is one objective past, and that naturalism is a belief (thats probably another topic)
I don't think naturalism is a belief. It is the default, what you find when you open your eyes and look around. All of the objective evidence points in that direction.
But if you come up with some idea contrary to naturalism, something that can't be objectively verified, and choose to accept it anyway in spite of the lack of evidence, now that would be a belief.
I know this is just one unanswered question lol, i just wrote a couple of posts ago that I posted this to see who on here has that feeling to provide an answer to every single objection.
Browsing through debates such as these, there's always that category of people who just cannot leave a question unanswered and say: you have a point. They feel forced to try and answer even a question that is assumed unresolved by the scientific community. I'm glad that you are not one of those people, since you were able to say that there are unanswered question such as this one
I have provided no "answer" to the salt question. It appears to be a gap in scientific knowledge. The presence of gaps, or unanswered questions, is not proof of a very specific deity, though it is often portrayed as such. Thor, god of thunder, went away when scientific understanding closed that gap. Do you want your deity relying on a gap such as that? That's a pretty risky proposition, given scientific advances.
I was just trying to pin some of those people down, so I don't have to waste my time arguing with them further on
(by the way, I will be doing night shifts on a campground all summer, so I'll have a lot of time to discuss with you people)
A campground, eh? Hope you got a good venue with lots of scenery and quiet evenings. Look forward to further conversations.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.