[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.

[Varda]

"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."

It's not a scientific position at all, it's theology. Therefore the evidence for a theological position comes from the effects of the theology. For me then the spiritual promises made by Christianity and the Catholic church have proven true. Am I better off now than before, yes. Did I become more free by following the commandments, yes. Is truth objective, yes. etc

If positive evidence means physical evidence then it seems to me that both you and the creationists want the same thing, physical evidence for a non-physical being.