If the natual world is all there is?

Does reducing everything to natural explanations only limit all things down to the most basics, that is just the material makeup of the universe itself?

All manner of phenomena in nature can be explained by natural processes, so you may need to expand on what you mean?

For example, does the formation of our solar system from a disk of gas, dust & fine particles, as a result of gravity acting on this material, seem to you like the reducing of this process to a natural explanation?

What I mean isn't something that can be explained by natural processes.

Then you need to explain what you do mean as precisely as possible please?

Please note: If you can't define reasonably precisely what it is you think you believe as a matter of fact, then you don't actually believe in it. Give this some careful thought & I think you'll understand what I mean.

Can meaning be grasped through looking at the basic building blocks of the universe? If not, and we know that there is meaning in the universe, doesn't that disprove everything that can be known looking at the material world immediately?

"we know that there is meaning in the universe" - the trouble with such statements is that not everyone agrees with them.

I certainly don't agree that there's meaning in the Universe. There're various things in my life that have meaning for me & likewise I assume for most other people but beyond that, I don't know what it means for the Universe to have or contain meaning.

So would you explain as precisely as you can how you think there is meaning in the universe?

At the least, we know that everything can not be reduced to materialistic, physio-chemical properties for not everything is physical.  For example (and perhaps ironically) most agree that the physical "laws" of the universe and their associated mathematical descriptions (equations) and constants are real, yet are not themselves, physical.  They are abstract formalisms.

As far as "meaning," purpose or value, if metaphysical naturalism is true and nature is "all there is," then it is difficult to see how there can be any objective basis for such things regardless of whether we're talking about the universe, humanity or even our own personal feelings; no matter how strong or "real" the meaning, purpose or value of our lives may seem to us.  Such would still have to be subjective and entirely illusory. 

We must also be careful to distinguish between phenomena that have been explained by natural processes vs. those that are assumed to be true.  For example, scientists strongly believe and assume that life can arise from nonlife via natural processes, but this belief has not been empircally demonstrated or verified, and in fact the more we learn on this topic the greater the gulf between the living and non-living.

Far as I know, gravity is a invisible force with no scientific explanation 

I would beg to differ, you do believe there is meaning in the universe. There are things in your life that have meaning, that means there are things in your life that have meaning. Moreover, you are acting with intent to the meanings you perceive in every conversation you enter into. In addition to that, you express yourself with intention excepting those you are talking to also grasp what you mean. You have to really butcher language to not get this.

"butcher language"? Then let's be succinct & simply say that people find meaning in all manner of activities & relationships?

Why involve the entire Universe?

You made reference to 'meaning' & I merely pointed out that it's a concept relevant to creatures capable of thinking about meaning, that's all. Otherwise there's no reason to think that the Universe has meaning in any way that makes sense.

But you seem to be claiming all manner of knowledge that you do not possess. Exactly what abilities highly complex biological entitiies can have is as unknown to you as it is to anyone else. Understanding how complex molecules can join together to form something that's capable of replicating itself and in time produce a creature that's aware of its own existence, is a work in progress.

As I keep reminding you (scientific) ignorance is not a safe place from which to start making sweeping statements about what is, or isn't, possible in the natural Universe.

Here is the thing, "But you seem to be claiming all manner of knowledge that you do not possess." I'm not talking about possible events maybe could have happened millions or billions of years ago, that is you. The main thrust of what I'm talking about is information within DNA; it doesn't just happen because it was not a beautiful calm day around a pond or some other place in the imagination of man with the proper chemicals in it. You do seem to complain about the very things you do a lot. 

I don't possess knowledge about how the first lifeform emerged & neither does anyone else. That's where we are & attempting to draw vaulting conclusions about what our ignorance of this matter means, is very unwise.

The thing under discussion is chemistry in the link. No need to ponder the past, it is what it is. Are you not the one who says it is okay to infer that something is true based on what we know?

Do you infer common ancestors?

"Do you infer common ancestors?" - actually I don't, professional biologists do & it's one of the main predictions that evolutionary theory makes. Modern studies of DNA certainly support that conclusion.

Although more correctly it's common ancestor (of all living things on earth), rather than common ancestors.

But I don't feel under any obligation to watch a video almost 2 hours in length (I can't remember where you posted the link?), when the presenter seems to object to abiogenesis as much on grounds of faith as on the science. If this isn't the case, why does he refer to faith within 50 seconds of starting?

It isn't grounded on anything other than chemistry, and I'm not going to bother with you on that any more.