can science accept assertive law?

You've said two things that accurately define science, sort of: What you said up until the "exist in an idea" portion makes good sense. Science studies the natural world, the world available to our senses. Science takes for granted that the world of our senses exists. Questions about the reality of existence are philosophical, not scientific. 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? Keeping things simple, hypotheses are very tentative, theories are tentative, facts that we gather through observation and experiment are certain. It's actually not this simple, but I hesitate to introduce nuances until this point becomes clear.So science can study anything we can observe, even if we can only observe it indirectly. We can only measure temperature indirectly, using a thermometer. We can only see cells indirectly, using a microscope. We can only detect electrons indirectly via special instruments.But science cannot study things we can't observe. To study God science requires that he be in some way observable. Science will never assume the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. And defining God as a synonym for all of reality is just playing word games, plus most Christians wouldn't agree with you anything, since they believe that God transcends reality.--Percy

How does it make any sense to respond to a question about you mean by "existence" by making another vague assertion about existence? If people have to keep interrupting discussion with you to tell you you're not making sense, then maybe you're not making sense.Let's try again.When you use the word "existence", do you mean the world of our senses, and which science can therefore study? Or do you mean the existence of philosophy, such as existentialism and so forth, which are conceptual rather than real and which science cannot study?--Percy

As Nwr explained, the context was the definition of existence, and I was asking whether you were referring to the definition of existence as it might be used by science to refer to what we can detect with our senses, or to the definition of existence one might use in philosophy, such as of the philosophy of existentialism which has a particular definition of existence.Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." We've been refraining from ridicule, but you're making it tough.--Percy

No, it really isn't. Someone who really held that position would not use phrases like, "exists in existence," or ask questions like, "existence=?". It is possible, perhaps even likely, that you don't have a clear idea of what you're trying to say.In science we believe anything detectable by our senses exists, whether detected directly or indirectly with instrumentation. Anything we cannot detect with our senses or perhaps have not yet detected with our senses may still exist, but scientifically there is nothing we can know about it.If we're talking about science, then when you ask, "existence=?", the answer is that existence is whatever we can detect with our senses. Synonyms for existence in this context might be the "natural universe" or the "real world".If what you're really asking is a question like, "What is the nature of the fabric of space/time?", then this is a legitimate scientific question, and there are scientists working on this question. Interestingly, this context does sort of touch on addressing your assertion that "nothing can exist outside of existence", since some theorists believe that our universe is not the only one. These other universes cannot be considered part of our reality unless we can detect them, and some think that dark energy may be a manifestation of our universe's interaction with adjacent universes.--Percy

I'm confused. Did you think you were replying to Tesla?--Percy

It was obvious that you had clicked on the reply button for Imageinvisible's Message 45. I can see how your reply makes sense if it were directed at Tesla, but not if directed at Imageinvisible, which is why I'm confused. You were responding to Imageinvisible's attempt to characterize Tesla's thinking. Unless I'm misreading Imageinvisible's post, what you're actually critisizing isn't Imageinvisible's logic, but Tesla's logic as characterized by Imageinvisible. Here's his full argument: That last part, "Is this what you are trying to get at?", is where it becomes clear he's attempting a recapitulation of Tesla's thinking.Imageinvisible goes on to describe his own views, which seem vague and contradictory and which you and I would probably disagree with if they were clearly expressed, such as this: But that wasn't what you quoted in your response, so I'm confused.--Percy

I certainly hope so!--Percy