[Varda]

Actually I don't believe that you can prove metaphysical existence through the use of physical evidence. I think the spiritual side of existence is known first through faith and only later does one come to understand evidence in light of that faith.

On the other side Weinberg claims that the physical evidence demonstrates the metaphysical proposition that laws are "impersonal". We all agree that the laws exist. The only question is whether they are personal (in some way) or impersonal. I can believe that he has faith that the laws are impersonal but unless he can demonstrate the presence or absence of the personal, he's not standing on a better platform of evidence than I am and I'm not claiming my metaphysical assertions are science, he is.

[jennyp]

On the other side Weinberg claims that the physical evidence demonstrates the metaphysical proposition that laws are "impersonal". We all agree that the laws exist. The only question is whether they are personal (in some way) or impersonal. I can believe that he has faith that the laws are impersonal but unless he can demonstrate the presence or absence of the personal, he's not standing on a better platform of evidence than I am and I'm not claiming my metaphysical assertions are science, he is.

But as snarks_when_bored has argued, the assumption that there's a person of some kind pulling our (physical law) strings from beyond the universe is hardly in a privileged position after 400 years of science. The existence of this supernatural personality that's supposedly behind all this natural regularity is the positive assertion that needs to show its positive evidence.