I don't know what symbols and rules are in the natural reasoning system, but the reasoning principle should be basically the same.

Define predicates:

A (x): X is a meaningful proposition;

B (x): X is the proposition of analysis;

C (x): X is a proposition that can be falsified in principle;

D (x): X is a religious proposition;

I use the symbol @ to represent full-name quantifiers respectively; So:

Premise:

( 1):@x(a(x)∧￢b(x)→c(x))；

(2):@x(d(x)→(￢b(x)∧￢c(x))；

Conclusion:

(0):@x(d(x)→￢a(x))；

In fact, because this topic only involves full-name quantifiers, and there is only one argument, it can be completely solved by propositional logic:

( 1):a∧￢b→c；

(2):d→￢b∧￢c；

Prove:

According to (1)

=>￢(A∧￢B)∨C

=>(￢A∨B)∨C

=>(B∨C)∨￢A

=>￢(B∨C)→￢A

=>￢B∧￢C→￢A

Reuse (2)

=>D→￢A

Certificate of completion;

You just need to change the above symbols into corresponding predicates, and then add quantifiers in front of them.