Naturalism/materialism are simply the extension of the Burden of Proof...

We can easily establish the burden of proof by assuming the opposite.  Suppose that there is a burden of disproof.  Anything that can be postulated must be disproven before we can know what is true.

Once we have the burden of disproof established, we can make two proposals:

1) Everything that you hear is incorrect.  You have never and will never accurately comprehend anything that anyone says.

Have your opponent try to disprove this.  He'll probably make some kind of attempt by saying that he can see from how people react to him that he has understood them.  Then, make your next proposal:

2) Everyone else on the planet sees and hears you incorrectly.  Nobody on the planet has ever or will ever interpret anything you do or say correctly.

Have him try to disprove this, while laboring under the possibility that nothing he has heard about the propositions is correct.

Pretty soon, you'll have him twisting like a pretzel if you just keep adding propositions that make any attempt at proof possible.  What you're hoping is that you can get him to either admit that the burden of disproof is nonsense, or go into some kind of nihilistic nowhere land.  In either case, you win.  If he admits that the burden of proof is real, this is the response:

1) Naturalism/materialism, then is simply the extension of the Burden of Proof.  If we cannot prove something, we don't believe it.  You've already proved this, since you don't accept any of my unprovable propositions as true.

If he goes nihilistic, you respond like this:

2) Ah, but where did you learn about God?  From other people!  You have no reason to believe in God, for you have no reason to trust your senses, since you can't disprove that everything you perceive is completely wrong.

It's likely that after you establish the Burden of Proof, he'll go on to faith vs. reason, which will just loop you back into the burden of proof.