can science accept assertive law?

not sure how to debate existence, which the word is like all words, they describe something.existing isn't an idea..its an asserted fact that science has not produced an answer to.i cant debate it in science that's based on something tentative.I'm deeply concerned that science is given too much freedom with tentative theories in regard to what i call : the LAW of existence.is this then debatable? or forever to be overlooked by science?(its viable in the ID debate since existence is what religion was spawned from by the question that only man can ask: where did we come from, and how can we exist? which ironically was also the basis of scientific enquiry) -IMO

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

personally, is it science seems best fitted for me.i want to know if an asserted fact of logic has any place in science at all.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

is there not a theory that sub-atomic particles are chaotic?if yes, would this theory be found impossible by an acceptance of existence as being an established intelligent entity?in this way: i would assert that chaos is only apparent by intelligent design, and that no order can exist (accept for a microsecond) if based on chaos.if you refute these assertions, then let me just say that: if existence itself is proof of God under the law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the lack of observance is an ignorance of science. and that by acknowledging this would also create a new law concerning religion and science:that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.
therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by. Edited by tesla, : removed "not"

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

there is a chaos theory for sub atomic particles. i just don't know if it has been written off.ill show you my definition of chaos:chaos: total disorder: chaotic (Websters)chaos means no order at all.but that's getting off topic, i just wanted to answer my motives.to answer the incoherent text: if existence is not defined, it is an ignorance of science. and science suffers an unnecessary ignorance.but the reason for the topic, with existence as an example; how can an asserted statement be explored by science if science will only explore the tentative?is it even possible for scientific inquiry?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

so...i should stop posting on these threads?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

kk warning noted. but i must also note i cannot post in any ID or science forums concerning ID without acknowledging what I cannot dispute, is the reason for the debate at all.ill refrain from posting any of my ideas concerning the issue.the purpose of this thread is to see if science can accept assertive law for scientific inquery.Edited by tesla, : changed content of the post.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

thanks, that answered my question, this topic may be closed.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i just wanted to open existence into scientific enquiry.but existence is a definite statement.tentative statements are like: may be present, could be present.but existence is assertive: IS present. IS real.but nobody wants to define existence. some say it just an idea, but that's not tangible. and to exist is to be a part of existence.i cant argue it. and most people wont even try to fathom it.so I'm dropping it. at least in science. and religion isn't scientific enquiry to define it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i can tell you what i meant BY it, yet I'm sure a professor in the English language is laughing somewhere.i meant by assertive law: a law that is a definite statement.existence is assertive because it is a definite statement.that no thing can exist outside of existence. but nothing could be before existence. so existence is first of all things, and would exist singularly under the scientific law "energy cannot be created or destroyed".but it was argued the law i just quoted , although a law, is tentative.explaining this goes against what this topic was made for tho.i was told in a debate that science will not accept "God" because God is not being introduced tentatively. i was arguing that existence and God by definition are one and the same.this topic may be closed if any admin so wishes. i was given an adequate answer to the question it was asking.Edited by tesla, : if you saw the post before the edit, your still laughing.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

very well.i think i took for granted that science defines existence as an idea.as far as my language goes, i cant hope to understand all the definitions used, and am willing to take any correction, but hope that what I'm saying can be at least understood.ideas are tentative. (may be...could be)
things are facts to be studied.let me take the argument if so allowed:that existence is a thing, and able to be studied.by this observation:does what we see, what we smell, what we touch, what we hear, what we taste, exist in an idea?ideas are not substantial, our senses show us only what is substantial. by this observation, existence is a thing.if existence was an idea, then the potential would be for what does exist, to not exist. because an idea is not substantial.a thing can be studied by science.in conclusion: existence can be studied by science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

When you use the word "existence" it makes your meaning ambiguous. Do you mean the world of our senses, which would be science? Or do you mean the existence of philosophy, such as existentialism and so forth?

---

currently the only process to explore existence , even though it is a thing, is by reason.since you cannot run an experiment on it (yet), then you will not accept it as science.but it is a "thing" and i believe that using science to explore it with reason based on scientific laws would bring about a better definition of the "thing" that we exist in.so unless this post has convinced any scientist that its worth exploring, then let it be left to philosophy, and i withdraw my argument with science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing."

---

OK, so how would you define someone taking a real thing and treating it as an abstraction?existence as an abstraction is absurd.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if something that exists to be abstract, then how can you have any faith that anything is at all?if that which does exist is not abstract, then neither can the noun describing what something exists "in" be abstract.car exists in garage-garage exists in house-house exists in earth-earth exists in solar system-solar system exists in galaxy-galaxy exists in existence.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

It's that last part, the "exists in existence", which makes the whole sentence incoherent.

---

elaborate?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

elaborate?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides